Me neither

New House Republican plan dead before arrival as default looms

The key parts of the plan would have kept the government open through mid-December and grant the Treasury Department authorization to borrow through February. But the proposal also includes a stipulation that members of Congress, their staff and administration officials — including President Barack Obama — be forced to obtain health insurance coverage through the exchanges established under Obamacare. Unlike most Americans, they also would not be eligible to receive federal subsidies to offset the cost of those plans or seek financial help from their employer. 

Yeah, I wouldn't vote for that either.

How to

A while back, I happened on Google Trends and at the time, I thought it might be a pretty useful tool for analyzing trends.  Unfortunately, it seemed like every search I entered had a downward trend, which led me to believe that maybe there was some downward bias.  Something like, as the volume of searches increased, the relative volume of a particular search might decrease simply because people were searching for a wider variety of things.  If that were the case, then an upward trend might be particularly meaningful, while a downward trend might not be meaningful at all.

Anyway, today it popped into my head to see what kind of trend there might be for the phrase "how to feel good."  Here's the graph (you need to have javascript enabled to see it, or go here):


I suppose there are a lot of ways to interpret this, and perhaps I'll delve further into it sometime. I am particularly curious about the big spike around 2005, reaching a level of 69 which the chart doesn't reach again until 2010.  Any thoughts?  Anybody?  Bueller?

Well, I proceeded to try a lot of "how to" searches, and was surprised to see that people are apparently looking more and more for how to do most anything.  So, either we're getting smarter and realizing we don't know everything, or, we actually don't know and can't figure out how to do much of anything on our own.  It's just easier to ask someone else.

Then, it occurred to me to just try "how to" and see what the most popular "how to" searches were.  It was a little depressing.



Again, I suppose there could be a good explanation for these results, but it seems we're most concerned with how to use iTunes, Gmail, MySpace, and Minecraft, rather than how to do anything useful other than entertain ourselves.  Well, okay.  How to kiss and how to draw are, perhaps, useful.  I probably should have known this was true based on the Hot Searches page, which is usually full of sports and entertainment related searches.  We don't really want to know how to do stuff; we just want to know what other people are doing.

Reason to celebrate

Which Country Has Won the Most Nobel Prizes? Check This Map

If you're really looking for a great example of how to skew data to "prove" how great the U.S. is, check out that map and the accompanying article.  Then come back here and read the rest of the story.

According to this article, the U.S. has received by far the most Nobel Prizes of any country, 344, compared to number two United Kingdom, with only 119.  The article actually makes the claim that this should make us feel pretty good about "the state of things" in the U.S.

Now, I'm not going to go through the entire list, but I just want to point out a few problems with this data.  The first problem I noticed was that the 2013 Nobel Prize for Chemistry was shared by three people, so it's listed as three separate awards.  Then, I noticed something else: none of the three people was born in the U.S.  A little more looking revealed that only one of the three was educated in the U.S.  I'm not exactly sure why this should make me feel good about being American.  There are many more examples of the same bias in the list.

The second thing I realized is that the sheer size of the U.S. population probably also affected the number of prizes being won by U.S. citizens.  On a per capita basis, the U.S. has won fewer Nobel Prizes compared to the U.K.: The U.S. has won 1.09 awards per million population, while the U.K. has won 1.86 per million population.  Notably, one of the previously mentioned award winners for the 2013 Prize in Chemistry was educated in the U.K., but happens to live in the U.S. now.

And of course there are more problems with the list.  For example, Albert Einstein won an award, but again, he wasn't born or educated in the U.S.

Well, it's Friday, so let's all just get drunk and celebrate being American.  We're still pretty okay and as near as we can figure there's nothing to worry about.  Forget all those silly ratings that say our education system is declining.  Forget the fact that we pay more for health care but have lower life expectancy.  At least there is one good thing in all of this: that the supposed best and brightest of the world, born and educated in other countries, still apparently think there is some good reason to move to the U.S., and if that's not something to celebrate, then I don't know what is.

Heck, we're only a little below average!

Here's an article that perhaps does more to explain why the U.S. educational system will just continue to get worse than any argument backed up by facts.  Why?  Because the article, and its commentators, are busy trying to explain how the facts don't mean anything.  Here's an example:

Every year someone conducts a geography test among America's high school students, and every year the results are the same: lots of kids can't find France on a map. Quelle horreur! And every year I have the same reaction: how about if we give this test to adults? I'll bet most of them can't find France on a map either.

 It may or may not be that most adults can't find France on a map.  I can't speak for most people.  As it happens, though, I can find France on a map.  But here's a fact about skills: if you don't use them, you lose them.  If you don't have to remember where France is on a map, then it's quite possible you'll forget where it is.  It doesn't mean you never learned it in the first place.  Just like any other skill, if you don't use it, you'll lose it.  If you're a good guitar player, but you don't practice for years, it's unlikely you'll just pick it up later as if you never stopped.  This is the very point of the television show "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader."  I would hope that the fifth graders were more familiar with the subjects that they have just studied than an adult that hasn't given those subjects a thought in years.

In fact, this degradation of skills is also the big reason we should be concerned about high unemployment and underemployment of college graduates.  These people learned skills in college that they aren't using now, and those skills are gradually fading away.  But that's a whole other subject.

There's a widespread myth that America used to be the best educated country in the world and has since slipped into mediocrity, but as near as I can tell it's just a myth.

As near as you can tell?  Take a look at the history of this country, a country that started from next to nothing and over the course of about 200 years became the most powerful nation on Earth.  I have serious doubts that we accomplished that with a mediocre at best educational system.

America's kids have always been fairly middle-of-the-pack.

Yeah, I don't know about that.  But, let's say that statement is true for a moment.  Does that mean that we should be satisfied?  I can remember a time when people strove for better than mediocre, when the ultimate goal was to excel.  Of course, not everyone did.  The key to living a good life was to know and accept your limitations.  Everyone can't be the best at everything, and most can't be the best at anything other than being themselves.  You learn to accept your limitations and move on.  But to say that we've always been mediocre is no reason to not try to be better.

And yet....as you can see in the chart, the difference in literacy levels between countries is fairly small except at the very top and bottom, and the United States is sandwiched right in between Denmark, Germany, and France.

 Okay, and if we assume that these scores are normally distributed then that would make sense, as most of the scores would cluster around the mean.  But I still don't see why we should feel good about being sandwiched somewhere just below the middle simply because we're about the same as France (which we can't find on a map, but maybe they can't find us either) and Germany, et. al.  I don't care how anyone else feels about this, really, I want to be up there with Japan.  And, if you look at some of the other graphics in this report you'll see that the people who wrote the report describe the area of the charts that the U.S. is in as being "significantly below average."

But the more troubling thing about the chart than just our low placement, is the wider than normal disparity in scores here in the U.S.  That's what the longer bar means.  It means that there is a significant difference between the highest and lowest scores here.  As it is put in the original publication:

On average, 152 score points separate the highest and lowest 5% of performers in literacy. A number of countries have comparatively small variations in literacy proficiency among their adults. These include Japan (129 points), the Slovak Republic (131 points), the Czech Republic (133 points) and Korea (136 points). Countries with comparatively large variations in scores include Sweden (163 points), Canada (163 points), the United States (162 points), Finland (162 points), Spain (162 points) and Australia (161 points).

 The author of the article, in defending his apparent position that there's nothing to be alarmed about in our education system puts forth this question:

Does anyone think that Denmark and Germany are educational hellholes doomed to decline and poverty?

No, they are average, but I do think that if they look at these results with the attitude that they are about average, and what's to worry about, then they will become "educational hellholes", and the same goes for us.  If we all just sit back and say "I don't think it's really any worse than it ever was" it will get worse.

As an aside, one odd result in this study is that America does worse in numeracy than in literacy. This is odd because if you look at NAEP test scores over time, it's the math scores that have gotten substantially better. If there's an area where you'd think the United States would be in relatively better shape, it's math.

I don't really see this as odd at all.  The NAEP is a U.S. government administered test.  Unfortunately, the site is down due to the government shutdown so I can't actually link to it now.  But just because the U.S. scores have improved on these tests doesn't mean much of anything.  I know from personal experience that teachers tend to teach what is on these tests, and they teach how to take the tests.  So, I would expect scores on those tests to improve over time, but only because the students have been primed for that test.  The OECD report on the other hand shows that we have lost ground relative to other countries.  Perhaps they're not just pushing to raise test scores like we are.

In short, the reason that I think our educational system here in the U.S. will continue to get progressively worse is because no one really wants to believe that it actually is, and beyond that, people want to think that average is some kind of goal to try to attain.  As I always tell the kids here, average is NOT the goal because if that's where you aim, it's more likely you'll actually hit below average.

There were some interesting comments on the article as well.  Here's a good one:

Part of the reason the United States is average is because it is so big.

Good one!  Being that the U.S. is one of the largest countries in terms of geographic area, we have a built-in excuse to be below average.  Welp, nothing we can do about that!  And here's a reply to that comment:

Also, the diversity.

  I don't know about that.  Diversity is supposed to provide for a more rich educational experience, something that is definitely lacking in our educational system because we're too busy trying to act like we're all the same.  But, that's the subject for another post, perhaps.  But it is true that ethnic diversity seems to have a negative impact on where a country places in the OECD report.  Here's a map showing the relative ethnic diversity of countries.  Follow that link and you'll see that the higher scoring countries generally have lower diversity.  One notable exception is Canada, which placed higher in the report but is also more diverse.

I'm sure this data set is as relevant to national education as Olympic medal counts are to overall physical fitness.

Yeah, when we don't like data, we can always resort to calling it irrelevant.

At any rate, that's my take.  I've never been shy about saying that the education system here in the U.S. needs a major overhaul.  And this attitude that we're okay because we're not that far below average is the reason we'll continue to decline until we're not smart enough to know how far we've fallen.  Although, judging from this article, we may already be there.

Whatever happened to Generation X?

I'll make this short.  I'm working on a series of posts about generational differences, and one of the first posts that I happened to look at, Why Generation Y Yuppies Are Unhappy, seemed to imply that there never was a Generation X.  I always thought there was, but what do I know?  The post basically says that the Boomers raised the Generation Y.  I thought perhaps it was an oversight by the original author, but then, to my surprise, in the comments I saw that one person claimed to have been born "on the cusp" of the baby boom/Gen Y.  So, being that I don't like to jump to conclusions without knowing at least some facts (see my recent poll of readers), I figured I'd ask my readers what they thought happened to Gen X.  Just leave a comment, and we'll get down to the bottom of this together.

My take on the Obama education plan

Obama Takes on the College Cartel

Congratulations on the catchy headline!  Someday, I'll learn how to write eye-catching headlines like that.  But I digress.  I really want to talk about Obama's education plan.  Everywhere I look, I see the claim that the president has a plan to "make college more affordable."  This sounds an awful lot like Obamacare, which I've already argued will do no such thing.  I think the administration needs to redefine "affordable."  So, here's my response to the plan as outlined in the above-linked article.

“College has never been more expensive,” Obama declared during today's campaign-style speech in Buffalo. “Higher education cannot be a luxury. It’s an economic imperative.”

Okay, so I'm stumped already.  What makes higher education "an economic imperative?"  I guess you can look at historical data and statistics and see that in the past, college grads were less likely to be unemployed and over the course of their working life would make somewhere around a million dollars more.  Sounds good, but in the past, everyone wasn't a college grad.  College grads made more money, and were unemployed less because they have been in short supply.  Making everyone a college graduate removes the shortage and makes having a degree a non-advantage.

Enough about that.  I wanted to talk about the specifics listed in the article, which are:

• Rank colleges based on performance.
• Link government-backed financial aid to college performance.
• Ease the burden on borrowers.

Gee, that all sounds good, doesn't it?  Let's have a look at each of these one at a time.

Rank colleges based on performance. Unlike the “best colleges” rankings published by a number of private organizations, the government’s scorecard would measure things such as affordability, a school’s outreach to disadvantaged students, graduation rates and the real-world earnings of graduates once they enter the job market. Obama wants these rankings to be in place by the time the 2015 school year begins. The Dept. of Education already provides some affordability data on colleges; under the rating system, there would be even more info and it would be easier to compare colleges.

So, the first part of the "solution" is to devise a new ranking system.  Of course, we have to do that so that our rankings will show that we have actually made an improvement on the education system.  But what will we rank schools on?

1. Affordability.  Seems reasonable, except it doesn't tell us to whom it is affordable.  We can only guess that it means affordable to the students.  Unfortunately, that translates into something that may mean unaffordable to taxpayers, since the money has to come from somewhere, and whatever costs are not paid directly by the students are already subsidized.  How can a school make high marks in the affordability category?  By cutting costs.  Either make classes bigger or pay teachers less.  Neither of these is a great option.  Students can benefit from smaller classes, and I'm willing to bet that cutting teacher salaries won't do a lot to attract high-grade talent.
2. The school's outreach to disadvantaged students.  By "disadvantaged students" I'm going to assume the meaning is students from poorer backgrounds.  The article doesn't say how we're going to measure the school's outreach efforts.  I have read articles (apologies for not remembering where) that claimed that some disadvantaged students don't go to "better" schools even if offered a scholarship because they don't believe they can really go to an Ivy League college.  I'm not sure that the schools should be held accountable for that.  Otherwise, I don't really have much of a problem with this one.
3. Graduation rates.  Here's where I really start to have a problem with this whole thing.  How does anyone suppose that schools can increase their graduation rate?  Especially given that the government is going to be funneling less and less academically inclined students to their classrooms.  It's easy, really.  Make the curriculum easier.  Everyone gets a passing grade as long as they show up and hand in the work.  Never mind how good the work is.  If you hand it in, you get at least a "C," end of story.
4. Real-world earnings of graduates once they enter the job market.  Okay, except that the real-world earnings of graduates are going to be generally higher for students who attend those Ivy League colleges, because through attending that Ivy League college they've gained the connections that will give them an advantage after school.  At least, that's part of it.  Some colleges are located in lower paying areas, so it would seem natural for most graduates from those colleges to go to work at lower pay.  Some majors pay less.  And the amount of pay isn't necessarily the first consideration in accepting a job.  The point is, this is, in my opinion, a pointless rating.

Moving on to the next part of the "plan":

Link government-backed financial aid to college performance. Once the ratings have been established for a few years, Obama wants Pell grants and other types of federal aid to be targeted more toward schools that have a proven record of graduating a high proportion of students who get good jobs.

 This is a terrible idea.  Put together with the first part of the plan, this amounts to the government being able to pick and choose who gets more money.  They rate the colleges according to their own, self-designed rating system, and then dole out the cash according to who rates the highest.  If I were doing the rating, and I were doling out my own cash, that would be fine.  But I'm doing neither.  Instead, the government is doing the rating, which I may or may not agree with, and then doling out my (as well as other taxpayers') money.  In the end, the result is more likely to be that Pell grants will go to those institutions that are in the most expensive areas, and that graduate students with degrees that are more highly paid.  In other words, it will just create a new (or worse, it will just strengthen the existing) "education cartel."

Encourage states to fund public universities and community colleges based on similar performance measures. Some states, such as Tennessee, Indiana and Ohio, are already doing this. A push from Washington could encourage more to do so.

This just makes the previous terrible idea even more terrible.

Create new incentives for “innovative” types of education. Universities that offer accelerated three-year degrees, new types of online learning or other programs that help cut costs and boost return for students will be rewarded with higher ratings, “regulatory flexibility” or perhaps a public shout-out from the president.

I think this comes from the old adage that goes something like this: "Just because that's the way we've always done it is not a reason to keep doing it that way."  The problem is, sometimes the way we've always done it is actually the best way to do it.  The U.S. used to have a good education system.  Then, someone decided it needed to be "innovated."  Now, it's such a mess, it's a wonder anyone can think at all (or perhaps a better phrasing would be it's a wonder if anyone can think at all).  Whatever happened to "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?"  We have "fixed" and "innovated" our way into a rapidly declining education system that just gets more expensive.  We can't afford it.

Ease the burden on borrowers. Obama’s plan would cap payments on student debt at 10% of a worker’s monthly income. Some students who recently took out loans are eligible for this “pay as you earn” program, which Obama wants to extend to everybody carrying student debt.

This may be the only part of the "plan" that I agree with.  Borrowing money for any reason poses a lot of risks, even when the borrower uses those funds for the "right" reasons.  Getting a college education should be a right reason to borrow money.  But the future is always uncertain, which is where the risk comes from.  Making the repayment dependent on future earnings will help alleviate that risk.  But in actuality, I don't really think that students in higher education should be shouldered with massive debt at all.  I think the debt problem is really the result of all the other things that have gone toward increasing the cost of higher education.  We need to realize that not everyone belongs in college, and when we realize that, the cost will begin to decrease.  And that will lead, eventually, to less student debt and better outcomes for graduates.

Email from the White House

Today I received an email from the White House.  Okay, so did a lot of people.  I subscribed to the email list a while back so I could be a good, well-informed citizen.  This particular email was about the soaring cost of college education.  Yes, it is soaring, but I have yet to see any politician take the steps necessary to make the cost of higher education fall.  Instead, yet again, I see the plan is to make it easier for everyone to get government subsidies to pay for a college education, the very thing that has driven the cost of a college education through the roof.

I don't have a lot of time to address this issue at the moment, so let me make this as short and succinct as possible: The American taxpayers cannot afford to pay for everyone to go to college.  Not everyone is cut-out for college.  A college education isn't a right, it's a responsibility, and if a student isn't willing to do the work to at least make average grades, then the taxpayers shouldn't be burdened with the expense of them furthering their education.  And, as far as I'm concerned, taxpayers cannot afford to pay for college degrees in things like Medieval Dance, or similar "awesome and fun" degrees.  Get a real degree, or go to school on your own dime.

The real reason that college is becoming unaffordable for many people is that the government is busy ensuring everyone gets to go.  High demand pushes the price higher.  Stop treating higher education like it is some right that everyone deserves.  When that happens, the quality of education will increase, and the cost will eventually fall.  It's simple, but politically unpopular because no one will want to admit that their kid doesn't belong in college.  But some kids don't belong there.  And some degrees shouldn't be subsidized by the government at all.  Let kids, or their parents, decide to whether a major in an "awesome and fun" degree is truly worth the actual cost.

It's news, stupid. Er, it's stupid news.

“Bucket List” item lands two women in jail

Andrea Mobley, 36, and Jennifer Denise Morrow, 38, told the newspaper that stealing from a store was something they wanted to check off their “bucket list.”

Let me guess.  The next thing on their list was to spend the night in jail.  Win!


Maryland boy suspended for gun-shaped pastry is now lifetime NRA member

Ficker said the NRA membership gift was a great idea for the boy, who "is a good kid, a little rambunctious," because it would teach him proper handling of firearms. He said the boy's family does not own guns and the boy has never handled a gun.

So next time he makes a gun out of a Pop-Tart he won't get suspended for handling it incorrectly.


Poll: 17 percent of fliers don't mind diaper changes

After all, people eat on those tray tables.

I can say that there will be at least one less person eating on those trays in the future.

'Fake shops' open up ahead of the G8 summit

But officials have been accused of going too far after they plastered large stickers across boarded up shops in order to give them the appearance of still-thriving businesses.

Well, heck.  How do people expect the G8 to hold their little party, slapping each other on the back and congratulating each other on the fine job their doing if they actually see reality?

“These fake buildings are in every town and village in Fermanagh now. People are amused by them. No one is fooled. It is like when your mother-in-law is coming to visit and you give the house a tidy up.

 No one is fooled?  I'll be the G8 party-goers are fooled...

The problem with "beliefs"

The other day, I was reading this article, which was interesting, but isn't really the topic of this post.  Instead, I got sidetracked by the comments.  As is often the case, the comments ended up moving on to other topics; in this case, global warming (or climate change, or whatever we're supposed to call it this week).  And, I'm not really going to argue one way or the other on the issue of global warming since I'm really not well-informed enough to put together a real argument one way or the other.  Instead, I want to talk about one of the problems with the whole argument, which is that the global warming "believers" seem to have a tendency to call anything that might be construed as contradicting their belief an anomaly.

Anyway, after reading the comments in the above linked article, I went on to read some other news and happened on a couple of articles about global warming.

Mount Everest's ice is melting, researcher claims

The researchers suspect that the glacial melting in the Everest region is due to global warming, but they have not yet established a firm connection between the mountains' changes and climate change, Thakuri said in the statement.

And so, I'm sure the researchers will work diligently to establish a "firm connection" because to do otherwise would require rethinking their belief in man-made global warming.

The Mt. Everest article above then linked to this article:


Lopsided Melting Discovered Along Himalayan Glaciers

Glaciers and sea ice around the world are melting at unprecedented rates, but new data indicates that this phenomenon may be lopsided. It seems that some areas of the Himalayan mountain range are melting faster than others, which aren't melting at all, a new study indicates.

Now, if scientists were really looking at this data in an unbiased way, the conclusion might be that we really don't know why the melting glaciers are melting, but instead, because of the bias, we don't know why the glaciers that aren't melting aren't.  Referring to the glaciers that aren't melting, one researcher commented:

"This is an anomalous behavior."

So, somehow, glaciers that are "behaving" in the way they have for millenia are now considered anomalous.

And there is one other troubling aspect of the whole thing: since these nonmelting glaciers are simply doing what they've always done, it isn't news, so we don't hear about them; in fact, we don't even look for them.  We accidentally find them in our search for evidence to back up what we already believe.

I don't really mean to pick on just scientists; this is something that happens in nearly every area of human endeavor.  And, in my opinion, it is a major source of problems for us.  It is why our government can't really accomplish much of anything because the politicians are too hung-up on their beliefs and their ideologies.  It is why people's minds are closed to new ideas, because opening their minds would threaten their belief system; it would require that they continue to learn and accept that no matter how much they know, they don't know enough.  And learning is hard work.

Just one question

Half Of College Grads Work Jobs That Don't Require A Degree: Study 

We needed a study to figure this out?  I just have one question: Where does everyone think everyone is going to work when everyone has a college degree?

Poll update

Well, this is certainly unexpected.  As a result of my recent poll, I've discovered that my audience is 100 percent female.

A request

It's simple, really.  Reply to this post with one word that describes you.

Headlines

School Bans the Word ‘Easter’

“Kids love the bunny and we just make sure we don’t say ‘the Easter Bunny’ so that we don’t infringe on the rights of others because people relate the Easter bunny to religion,” she told the television station.

People relate the Easter bunny to religion?  Which religion?  Cuz, you know, that sounds like my kind of religion.  I guess I can kind of see how someone might get upset about all that worshiping bunnies, though.

How the Higgs Boson Might Spell Doom for the Universe

Steinhardt says, "There is a tiny sliver of metastability. Why is the universe just at this point? Is this actually a profound thing we have to understand?"

No.  In fact, look around.  Turns out, we really don't, and apparently don't need to, understand anything, much less anything profound. We only think we do.

You've got to keep your bosses entertained

Oxford librarian sacked over Harlem Shake at St Hilda's College 

All the students who had been identified as taking part in the video have been fined by the Dean and a librarian and graduate student, Calypso Nash, sacked for not preventing the Harlem Shake taking place.

Yeah, cuz, you know, it upset some of the senior staff.  We can't be upsetting people.  I'm just not sure what's to get upset about, other than I think it's a somewhat ridiculous thing to do.  The whole thing lasted 7 minutes according to the article, it happened after the library was closed, and the librarian who was fired didn't take part in the video.  She just didn't stop it.  Of course, the video would have been much more entertaining if the librarian really had attempted to stop the students, and maybe the librarian wouldn't have been fired.  So, the way I see it, the librarian was fired because she allowed a not entertaining enough video being made in the library.

China gets all the good stuff

McDonald's China releases Sausage Double Beef Burgers

It's two beef patties and two plump sausages drizzled with mustard --oh, and a bun.

And the price tag of $2.82 sounds like a bargain.  Yeah, we'll never see that here in the U.S.  I wouldn't be surprised to find out that New York is already working on outlawing them.

Some things don't really belong in the news

'Zip-related genital injuries' send thousands of men to ER each year 

Today, paying attention is the best way to prevent it. Wearing underwear helps, too.

Nah.  The best way to prevent this problem is to wear button fly pants.  And, my solution has the added advantage of being cooler.  But then, what do I know?  I didn't do a big fancy study on the subject.

Funny stuff

Unfortunately, I happened on this because someone was complaining.  I suspect Jesus himself would appreciate the humor.

The week in news

Drunken driver sues buddy, New Mexico restaurants

"Ruiz said in his suit that he was convicted and incarcerated due to the chain of events the defendants set in motion."

Yeah, like his friend said, "Let's go get something to eat."  And then the waiter said, "Would you like something to drink with that?"

"Ruiz was out on bond on his fifth DWI arrest when the fatal crash took place, authorities said."

Turns out, he really should be suing whoever let him out on bond.  If they hadn't done that, none of this would have happened.  Case closed!

Oklahoma crowd stunned by wrong-basket buzzer-beater

"... all Hugo High School had to do was inbound the basketball and run out the clock to advance in the Oklahoma state boys' basketball tournament."

But,

"Hugo guard Trey Johnson got confused after he received the inbounds pass and laid the ball into the wrong basket just before time expired, giving the opposing team, Millwood High, a 38-37 win Thursday night and a place in the Class 3A semifinals."

Cuz, basketball is hard like that.  Actually, I do feel bad for the kid, though.


North Korea rejects UN demands, vows to become 'nuclear weapons state'

 

It's funny, and it's not so funny.

 

Global Temperatures Highest in 4,000 Years 

Scientists say that if natural factors were still governing the climate, the Northern Hemisphere would probably be destined to freeze over again in several thousand years. “We were on this downward slope, presumably going back toward another ice age,” Dr. Marcott said.

Instead, scientists believe the enormous increase in greenhouse gases caused by industrialization will almost certainly prevent that.

 So, we're preventing another ice age?  Awesome!

Man accused of downloading child pornography in college library says he has shared images for years

"The problem is tough to police because of the imperfect nature of Internet filtering devices and pushback from free-speech advocates who believe adults should have the right to view adult pornography in libraries..."

 Doesn't anyone see anything wrong with anyone viewing any kind of pornography in public?  I really don't like the idea that the guy next to me might be, well, you know.  Do that stuff in private.  And what does this have to do with free speech?  Perhaps posting pornography could be interpreted as free speech, but downloading it?  Not so much.

News

'Non-lethal round' fired at Gitmo detainees in soccer field incident, US military confirms

"On his first full day in office in January 2009, President Barack Obama vowed to close Guantanamo, but he has been blocked from doing so by Congress, leaving most of the 166 detainees remaining there in perpetual limbo – even though at least 55 of them have been publicly cleared for release by an administration task force consisting of U.S. intelligence agencies.

The shooting incident, first reported by the Miami Herald, occurred on the grounds of a new $744,000 soccer and recreation field that was opened last year and touted by base officials as an example of new and more permissive conditions at the facility."

So, about a third of the people in Guantanamo have been cleared, but they're still detained there.  Of course, the do have that cool new soccer and recreation field, so what's the beef?

Meanwhile,

Bin Laden's son-in-law captured, charged in US with conspiring to kill Americans

"But two fellow Republicans, Sens. Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte, said Thursday the Obama administration's decision to bring Abu Ghaith to court in New York is wrong, "sneaky" and against the will of Congress."

Cuz, you know, I hear he's quite the soccer player.

Justin Bieber faints during concert in London

"Pop star Justin Bieber became woozy during a concert at London's O2 Arena Thursday, NBC News confirms."

The guy acts like he's always "woozy" so what's the news here?

Word games

10 Phrases Progressives Need To Ditch (And What We Can Say Instead)

Let's start with the first term "progressives" need to ditch: "progressives."  You're liberals.  You're not different just because you call yourself something different.  Progressive implies that you're forward-looking.  You're not.  You just think you are, perhaps because you have fooled yourselves by calling yourselves "progressives."

Now that I got that out of the way, let's look at what these "progressives" think they need to reword.

(1). Big Business: That's what it is.  But the "progressive" author of the article thinks we should call it "unelected government."  Um, no.  If big business is in fact some sort of government, it is definitely not unelected.  Every dollar that gets spent at Walmart, for example, is a vote for Walmart and its corporate interests.  If you have ever spent a dollar at Walmart, you have, in effect, elected them.  If you don't like what Walmart stands for, then shop elsewhere.  And what about government?  If  corporations are really that powerful, then why does the U.S. have such a high corporate tax rate?  It seems to me that if corporations had so much political pull that we could actually consider them government, the first thing that would be eliminated is corporate taxes.  Only, let's not call them what they aren't.  Is Walmart big?  Yes.  Is Walmart a business?  Yes.  Therefore, Walmart is "big business."  On the other hand, is Walmart unelected?  No.  Is Walmart government?  No.  Therefore, Walmart is not "unelected government."

Now, get over the idea that "we are powerless to hold [corporations] accountable."  Take action and stop spending money there.  In other words, be progressive.


(2). Entitlements: Here, the author is just concerned about the connotation of the word "entitlement."  The meaning is simple, though.  Entitlements are payments that an individual is entitled to by law.  How it sounds to "progressives" doesn't much matter.  It is what it is.

(3). Free Market Capitalism: Not many people believe that our economy can be characterized as "free market capitalism."  It clearly isn't.  The author makes the claim that "free market capitalism is a 20th-century utopian ideal that has amply been proven an unworkable failure, and damaging to society."  Number one, I don't think it has ever been proven "an unworkable failure," although I have my doubts that people can live up to the standard of ethics required to make it workable.  The failures might actually have more to do with government intervention in the economy, rather than an outright failure of "free market capitalism."  Suffice it to say that if one is referring to any economy in the world today, then, yes, we shouldn't call it "free market capitalism."  It doesn't exist.  There is no need to come up with a different name for it.

(4). Government Spending: Sigh.  Is the government spending?  Yes.  Only "progressives" want to call it "investing in America."  "They invest in education and infrastructure that wouldn’t prove profitable for businesses, but which still benefit society in the long-run."  Progressives like to say this kind of thing as if it's a self-evident, known fact.  The fact is that government "investment" in education has not resulted in any long-run benefit to society.  Now, it's more like a runaway freight train, devaluing the education that people used to work for; now diplomas are handed out for showing up, and there doesn't appear to be any way to stop it.  Well, not without some pain.  So... everybody gets one.  Everybody wins a prize.  We're all entitled.  And this is where the term entitled actually deserves a negative connotation.  The author may have a point mentioning infrastructure, but maybe that's only an illusion.  We don't pay for roads and bridges and other types of infrastructure directly, so we don't know the actual cost.  If we did, we might decide we don't need as much as we think we do now.  Something not mentioned by the author is police and fire departments.  Those, I think, are better left in the hands of government.  But I wouldn't call those expenses investments either.  So, yeah, "government spending" should just be called government spending.  Let's not call it something different in order to make it more palatable.

(5). Gun Control: Again, the author doesn't like the sound of this term.  "That sounds like you want to control people..."  Um, that is exactly what is meant by gun control.  "It sounds so nice, non-coercive, and reasonable."  Yeah, and one thing's for sure.  We don't want it to sound anything like what it is.  It isn't a matter of wanting safety; it's a matter of controlling.  In case the author hasn't noticed, our government is big on control.  Much of what our government does is, in fact, an attempt to control individuals.  Of course, I think that the excessive control that the government tries to put on us contributes to much of the irrational behavior people exhibit.  Gun control is, again, a matter of control.  The government does want to control who has guns; they want to control how many and what kind of guns.  To call it "gun safety" makes it sound like a class you take to learn how to handle a gun.  It's more than that.

(6). Illegal Aliens: Are they in the country illegally?  Yes.  Are they aliens?  Yes.  But, let's not call them that because, again, we don't like the sound of it.  Here, the author wants us to believe that illegal aliens are only here because big business wants them here.  Well, I guess if you're willing to give big business that much power, maybe they are unelected government.  So, let's call them "undocumented citizens."  They are undocumented, and "undocumented" sounds way smarter than "illegal."  Because it's a longer, bigger word.  You just can't argue with someone when they have a really big vocabulary.  But are they citizens?  Nope.  Apparently, progressives want to try to slip that word in right after the big, fancy word "undocumented."  Maybe nobody will notice.

(7). Pro-life: Here, I'll have to agree with the "progressive" author.  Once a child is born, conservatives generally don't care much about the child's life.  But being against unrestrained abortion doesn't have to be called "anti-choice" either.  Who ever decided that making a bad choice (having unprotected sex) should then entitle a person to make another, in my opinion, bad choice?  And if "progressives" want to make an argument that even with protected sex sometimes women get pregnant... um, that's why they invented abstinence.  Having sex is not a right.  It is a responsibility, and one that shouldn't be taken so lightly as these "progressives" seem to take it.  There's an old saying: "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."  Grow up and accept responsibility for your actions instead of thinking that it's okay to just throw a fetus in the garbage because you have the right to decide that.

(8). Right-to-work: I don't like unions.  I've never joined a union.  Unions have too much power.  Enough so that they can actually force an employer out of business.  Perhaps I have benefited from unions.  There was a time when unions served a purpose.  And they may again.  It's unfortunate that people need to have this sort of protection just to work and be paid a reasonable wage.  It's unfortunate that unions will push for more than a reasonable wage in order to be able to collect more in dues.  It's unfortunate that people are generally greedy.  "...union shops pay better wages to their employees..."  Maybe.  But at what cost?  How many jobs end up lost because some businesses can't pay union wages?  The term "right-to-work" may not be exactly right, but there's no need to try to spread the lie that unions are only good.  They're greedy just like the rest of us.

(9). The Environment: Huh?  What's not to like about "the environment?"  The author would prefer we referred to the environment as "shared resources."  I, for one, personally loathe the overuse of the word "share."  The term "shared resources" makes the environment sound like an ice cream cone that you share with a friend.  No, it's more important than that.  It isn't something that we just let each other use until it's all gone.

(10). Welfare: 'When conservatives talk about “welfare,” they make it sound like this pit people wallow in forever, rather than a source of help that’s available when we need it – and that we pay for through our taxes.'  In some cases, it IS a pit people wallow in forever.  Yes, we pay for it through our taxes.  Some people don't, though.  Some people just collect.  Still, there is something to be said for the author's alternative term "social safety net."  If people actually acted as if it were just that simply because of the name change, then I'm all for it.  Unfortunately, it often doesn't work that way.  And there might even be an advantage to the negative connotation of the term "welfare."  Maybe people are less inclined to depend on "welfare" than on a "social safety net."  Then again, maybe it wouldn't make a difference.

Instead of playing word games, "progressives" should try to live up to their self-styled label.  If not, why not just call yourself a liberal?  That way, we all know what you mean.

Quote

Strike at a great man, and you will not miss.  

Sophocles

How to fix the gap

I’ve written about this before, but I thought I’d go a little more in depth on the subject. One way of understanding unemployment is by analyzing the difference between potential GDP and real GDP, GDP being the value of goods and services produced in our economy. When real GDP falls below potential GDP, we have unemployment. Why? Because potential GDP is the theoretical amount that could be produced if we had full employment. So it’s really in the definition. The picture here shows what a graph of real GDP versus potential GDP looks like now.

Looking at the picture, we can see that it’s really a simple matter of either raising real GDP faster than potential GDP, or lowering potential GDP, or a combination of both. Close the gap, and unemployment will decrease.

Only it’s not so easy to raise real GDP, except, perhaps, through government spending, which is one of the things the current government is doing. That’s what stimulus spending is supposed to do. In this way, we increase employment, which raises GDP, and makes the gap smaller. Only, the gap isn’t getting very much smaller, and unemployment remains high.

So, the other option is to make potential GDP decline. That’s easy, but the government doesn’t actually want to do that, or at least doesn’t want to say it wants to do that. In fact, the government is doing things that seem intended to keep potential GDP rising. Now, I’m not saying that increasing potential GDP is a bad thing; in fact, it's good. But, I think this demonstrates how government should really just butt out. The idea behind a market economy is that things eventually work out by themselves. But when the government intervenes, unintended results abound.

For example, the government is providing huge subsidies for education. PELL grants, subsidized student loans, and tax credits are some of the federal programs. These things raise potential GDP by increasing “human capital.” Theoretically, the more college graduates there are, the more human capital there is, and the higher potential GDP becomes.  But is it really working out that way?

I’ve written before about how government subsidies for education are resulting in a devaluation of education. Basically, by declaring that everyone has a “right” to higher education, and ensuring that no one misses out due to lack of money, our education system is busily herding people through the system, keeping failures to a minimum, and lowering the value of getting that education. A college diploma is quickly becoming a piece of paper that says “I was there,” and not much else.

So, if government action is devaluing higher education, then we can say that soon enough higher education will be mostly worthless. Potential GDP won’t be positively impacted by the higher number of college graduates, and the recessionary gap will narrow. The cost of this narrowing, though, is enormous. We, as taxpayers, are spending billions to keep up the charade.

As if the devaluing of education isn’t enough, long-term unemployment also serves to decrease the recessionary gap. The longer people are unemployed, the more their skills tend to atrophy. Most people don’t sit around studying, working to keep their skills sharpened, and waiting for the day that they’ll actually get to use those skills again. So, long-term unemployment serves to lower potential GDP, resulting, again, in a narrowing of the recessionary gap. Yay!

What else can the government do to close the recessionary gap? Oh yeah. They can keep signing free trade agreements. That will surely help, because then we’ll keep exporting our capital to increase productivity in countries where labor is cheaper than it is here. If we export our capital, it isn’t available for use here, resulting in a decline in potential GDP, and another narrowing of the recessionary gap. Go us!

In the end, it’s going to cost us trillions, and take an inordinately long time to close the recessionary gap in the U.S. if we continue to follow the current “plan.” In the meantime, there’s going to be a lot of unnecessary pain, and it will take years, even decades, to pay for all this foolishness. And we’ll have the pleasure of watching while we become the new third world country.  And it will be as if we never spent that money.

We’re already sliding compared to other countries in many areas, like education. The answer to our problems is not to get more people to graduate with college degrees; we need to improve on the quality of our graduates. We need to recognize that there is no real “free trade” in this world. Free trade doesn’t exist when currency manipulation is the norm. Being able to buy cheap foreign goods doesn’t do us any good when we’re unemployed.

So, yeah. The government needs to stop with the heavy subsidization of education. They need to stop looking for the next new source of cheap imports. Otherwise, we’ll become a nation of college graduates, flipping burgers at McDonalds, and barely skilled enough to tie our own shoes. But, we’ll all be employed.

Quote

Where it is a duty to worship the sun, it is pretty sure to be a crime to examine the laws of heat.

John Morley

Quote

The world is a comedy to those that think; a tragedy to those that feel.

 Horace Walpole

Let's put on our thinking caps

Police Say They Found Testosterone at Home of Pistorius

Yeah, I don't really care so much about whether the police found testosterone or not.  The more interesting thing is that this guy shot a gun through a closed door because he heard something, even though someone else lived in the same house as him.  I don't know whether there was premeditation or not, and I'm not going to pass judgment on that, or even whether he should be charged with murder.  Instead, I'm going to assume he's telling the truth.

Apparently, he thought his girlfriend was asleep.  I guess it didn't occur to him to check.  This is what I call acting on "gut instinct," or "feelings," or "intuition."  Whatever you want to call it.  Really, if you're going to start shooting a gun, perhaps you should try a little rational thought first, unless, of course, you're standing face to face with an armed intruder.  Then, go with your feelings.   Unfortunately, though, more and more people tend to go with their feelings about things and little effort is put into any kind of rational thought.  This is a prime example of the importance of rational thought to our society; it's another example of why people need to forget about their biases, forget about what they think they know, and start actually thinking.

Business as usual

Sequester Cuts Will Not Cause The Sky To Fall On March 1 

But what actually happens on March 1?

"Nothing. Nothing happens," said a senior congressional aide who is keeping a close eye on the looming budget cuts.

In other words, on March 1, it will be business as usual for our government.  Nothing happens.

Quote

All art is bad, but modern art is the worst.

Joyce Cary

Quote

Economists are about as useful as astrologers in predicting the future (and, like astrologers, they never let failure on one occasion diminish certitude on the next).

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.

Lawsuit over grade

Megan Thode, Lehigh University Grad, Files $1.3 Million Lawsuit Over C+ Grade 

One thing I know is that these days, if you get a C+ in a class, you probably really deserved an F.  "I'm entitled."

Quote

History repeats itself, but in such cunning disguise that we never detect the resemblance until the damage is done.

Sydney J. Harris

Let's at least try to think

I've written before about how people need to forget about their ideologies and try thinking rationally instead.  It hasn't made much difference in the world.  But, here's an article that appears to back up what I'm saying.


The Surprising Brain Differences Between Democrats and Republicans

I know, it's Mother Jones.  Probably leftist propaganda of some sort or other.  I thought it would be.  I thought the article would end by telling me how conservatives regularly don't think while liberals do.  It didn't say that, though.

"We need a much broader and more thoughtful discussion about what it means if political ideology turns out to be nothing like what we actually thought it was. Scientists working in this new field tend towards the conclusion that the new research should make us more tolerant, not less, of political difference—not to mention a whole lot more humble about our own deeply held beliefs."

I disagree a little bit with this ending comment in the article.  I don't think we need to be more tolerant, I think we need to question "our own deeply held beliefs."  The meaning of this to me is that our ideologies cause us to make decisions based on fear or emotion, when we should be using rational thought, i.e. thought free from fear or emotion, to make decisions.  Of course, then we can read the comments and realize that nobody thinks the article applies to them, which is always good for a laugh at both Democrats and Republicans.

On rationalism

I’m a little surprised that there wasn’t at least some kind of whining about yesterday’s post, wherein I said something about raising the minimum wage being a good idea given the dysfunctional economy we live in.  I didn’t go much into the reasoning behind it, other than to say that employers tend to not recognize the contributions of their employees adequately.  But, there’s more to it than that.

Ayn Rand had this to say about Capitalism:

“Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual, since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man’s survival requires that those who think be free of the interference of those who don’t. Since men are neither omniscient nor infallible, they must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or to pursue their own independent course, each according to his own rational judgment. Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man’s mind.”

Unfortunately for us, we live in a world where few actually understand how to think, and those that do are subject to the whims of the majority who don’t.  Worse, those that don’t think rationally believe they do.  In the case of employers, it goes like this:  I pay my workers $X.  I make $Y in profits.  If I pay my workers $X+10, then I make $Y-10 profit.  And that’s as far as it goes.  This thinking was demonstrated by the reaction of McDonald’s stock price, which was likely at least in part due to the President’s comments in the State of the Union address.

Only, rational thought requires employers to look beyond this overly simplistic equation.  This is especially true of large employers, like Walmart.  In some areas, at least, Walmart is a big enough employer that their actions can have a substantial effect on the local economy.  If they pay their workers more, then the local economy is better off.  Their employees have more money to spend, and some of that might actually be spent at Walmart.  Turnover rates would be lower.  Taxes could be lowered in part because of less need for government assistance.

It’s true that a lot of people might just take the extra pay and think of it as some sort of entitlement and nothing would change at all, at least for them.  But higher pay based on performance would likely attract somewhat more worthy individuals, and convince them to stay longer.  Lower turnover results in lower costs.  Higher pay results in lower “welfare” payments.  Lower welfare payments result in lower taxes.

At least, that’s the way it should work, if we lived in a society where rational thought was something that happened on a regular basis.  Unfortunately, that isn’t reality.  The propensity for everyone to label first themselves, and then everyone else is, I think, an example of how nobody wants to think any more.  It makes it easy because we can just apply whatever our ideology is to whatever the problem is and bang, we think we have a solution.  And everyone else is stupid because their ideology is so obviously flawed.

But our world is complex.  In fact, it is so complex that simple ideologies don’t work.  Objectivism doesn’t actually work in the real world because it requires that people think rationally; that they deal with each other fairly; that they treat each other with respect simply because we are all human beings.  And that doesn’t happen.  And until it does, then I say, “Yeah.  Raise the minimum wage.”

Stupid or Troll?

I've been thinking about starting a new feature on this blog titled, well, it's titled the same as this post, "Stupid or Troll?".  I think it will explain itself.

Tonight, a college kid was talking about something.  I really have no idea what because, well, I do my best to ignore most of what he says.  But, he was talking about some distance and said "Like about 30 to 40 meters," which caught my attention because I had no idea why he might be talking in metric terms.  Then he said, "Oh wait.  I was thinking in yards, so about 50 meters."  So, I ask.  Stupid or troll?  Or, is there actually nothing at all wrong with this?  If the latter is the case, someone explain it to me. 

Quote

Few of us can stand prosperity.  Another man's, that is.

Mark Twain

It's not bad if I do it!

Obama State of the Union lands with a thud in Congress

There's a big surprise.  Of course, this article quotes a number of Republicans doing exactly what they accuse Obama of doing.  Not that I'm a big Obama fan.  I just find it fascinating that people all over see nothing wrong when they do a thing, but if someone else does the same thing, it's "another retread of lip service and liberalism," while their own comments are another retread of lip service and conservatism.  Both sides are guilty of the same thing.

McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) also dismissed Obama’s call to increase the minimum wage to $9 an hour. It’s something Obama said was necessary given that someone working full time at $7.25 an hour, the current minimum wage, would only make $14,500 a year. The minimum wage has been flat since 2009.

If this weren't such a dysfunctional economy, I would agree with Republicans, and in fact would eliminate the minimum wage altogether.  However, this IS a dysfunctional economy, employers don't recognize the contributions of their employees,  employers don't recognize the fact that if they paid their employees better, employee satisfaction would increase, turnover would decrease, welfare payments would drop, and taxes could be decreased.  This is the "trickle-down" theory that conservatives love so much, but in reverse.  Apparently, though, conservatives don't really want to test that theory; instead, they insist that poorer people should just accept what hasn't worked in the past on faith, that this time it will be different.  In the meantime, the rich are happy to reap the profits that they earn, paid for in part by entitlement benefits, but, not surprisingly, they don't want to pay for those entitlement programs.

Of course, I'm beginning to think that rich folks, and perhaps conservatives in general, actually like high unemployment.  Why?  Because high unemployment rates might actually help lower the turnover rate, thus lowering the costs of hiring and training new people.

Quote

We're all getting lashed to the great wheel of uniformity.

Robert James Waller

Quote

He who conceals his disease cannot expect to be cured.

Ethiopian Proverb

Quote

Every actual State is corrupt.  Good men must not obey laws too well.


Emerson

Yeah, blame it on the boomers.

Baby Boomers: It's All Your Fault

Yeah, don't I know it.  Of course, that's because boomers belong to what is probably the last generation to accept personal responsibility for their own outcomes.  Might as well take responsibility for every other generations lousy outcomes while we're at it.

I'm a boomer, I guess.  At least, I was born during the right time frame.  I never really thought of myself as a boomer, but the insistence of younger people referring to me in that terminology is fine, if it makes them feel better.  While I'm at it, I'm a bit overweight (fat), and apparently older members of my own generation don't think I have much of value to offer society, and according to at least some Gen Xers, I probably don't, so, yeah, I'm incompetent.  A fat, incompetent boomer.

 But, back to the previously linked article.  It starts out explaining how big of a cohort the baby boom generation is.  Okay, I'll take responsibility for that too.  I at least realize that it isn't my kids fault, and really, I don't think it's the result of stupidity on my parents part either.  It happened, and if it makes you young folk feel better, I'll take responsibility; it's all my fault.  It has to be somebody's fault, doesn't it?

As the boomers hit their peak spending and borrowing years in the late 1990s and 2000s, they splurged on second homes, SUVs, and went crazy on credit.

 Hm.  Around that time, I was busy telling people, mostly people younger than me, to reconsider how much they could afford to spend on a house.  But what did I know?  This was clearly different than the housing bubble I had lived through in the late 70s in Great Falls, MT.  That was just a local phenomenon, not national like in the early 2000s.  Besides, I'm sure that housing bubble was also my generation's fault anyway.

In fact, I'm sure ALL of the previous bubbles and collapses in the American economy were the baby boomers' fault.  Great Depression? Sure.  Panic of 1907?  You bet.  Feel better?

Good.  Now that we got the blame game out of the way, all I want to know is what are we going to do about it?  Oh, wait.  I shouldn't have said "we."  Cuz, you know, boomers can't do anything right.  So, Gen X, what will YOU do about it?  Oh, wait.  I already know.  Nothing, cuz it's NOT YOUR FAULT!  And Gen Y?  Take a guess at THAT answer.  They are, after all, the product of Gen X.

Quote

Life is a paradox.  Every truth has its counterpart which contradicts it; and every philosopher supplies the logic for his own undoing.

Elbert Hubbard

We're Number 1! (Part 4)

Are America's Best Days Behind Us?

I, for one, think they are, but they don't have to be.  Unfortunately, there aren't many people who would listen, and do the work to make a change.

We're Number 1! (Part 3)

Number One? 20 Not So Good Categories That The United States Leads The World In

Admittedly, a little dated but does anyone really think thngs are getting better?

We're Number 1! (Part 2)

Best Education In The World: Finland, South Korea Top Country Rankings, U.S. Rated Average 

The United States places 17th in the developed world for education, according to a global report by education firm Pearson.

Yeah, doesn't sound too good to me, but what do I know?  I'm pretty sure the government will do something to fix it, though.

The rankings are calculated based on various measures, including international test scores, graduation rates between 2006 and 2010, and the prevalence of higher education seekers.

And here's the fix: Make school so simple that everyone graduates, and offer incentives for everyone to go to college. Wait, we're already doing that stuff, and our ranking just gets worse, it seems.  Too bad Americans aren't entitled to a foreign education.

Quote

The future
you shall know when it has come; before then, forget it.

Aeschylus

We're number 1!

International rankings of the United States

I'm just going to pick a few of these rankings to comment on:

Index of Democracy: 17 out of 167

Yeah, that's got to be a typo or something.

Life Expectancy: 49 out of 224
And it's likely to get worse .  But, there is some good news in the American medical arena.

Global Competitiveness Report: 4 out of 131
We were #1 until recently.  Good thing we're teaching our kids to not be some darned competitive!

Unfortunately, we only rank #1 in one area: Patents.  But, sadly, there seems to be growing sentiment against patent and copyright protections.  I do have to agree with one point in this link, and that is that our current system is broken.  But that doesn't mean we should eliminate protection altogether.  I'm just not really seeing the argument that the author makes that somehow, innovation and creation will continue, or even increase.  Why would anybody spend the time and resources to make something worthwhile only to have someone else profit from the idea without doing the work?