I work in an engineering firm and see the decline of science & math in the 70′s as a wave that’s sweeping through the company as older generations retire and the younger engineers are increasingly young (now middle-aged) men from India and women from China.

It seems like the bright young people I know (especially boys) are completely turned off by school and don’t seem to want to go to college. What effect might this have?

I suspect there are people who believe that by allowing public education to fail, people will turn to religious schools. Perhaps it’s already happened. Was it planned(?) or am I just another cranky old white conspiracy theorist?

What are the causes? The opening of opportunities for women in other fields? A lack of discipline? A series of educational fads that were never subjected to the scientific method? Overcrowded schools? Popular culture? Too many immigrants? Too much sugar?

Are solutions working? Testing can be a good first step… Why do 1 room school houses seem to work so much better, and why are we closing them? What is the Gates Foundation doing and why? TV in the schools?

“McGovern to Meet With Congress on War

George McGovern, the former senator and Democratic presidential candidate, said Thursday that he will meet with more than 60 members of Congress next week to recommend a strategy to remove U.S. troops from Iraq by June.

If Democrats don’t take steps to end the war in Iraq soon, they won’t be in power very long, McGovern told reporters before a speech at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. “I think the Democratic leadership is wise enough to know that if they’re going to follow the message that election sent, they’re going to have to take steps to bring the war to a conclusion,” he said.”

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/09/D8LA01L00.html

“The face of the new House

The most outspoken member of the U.S. Congress in the Iraq war debate is U.S. Rep. John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, who aspires to become chairman of the Appropriations Committee, which is responsible for funding the war.

This powerful position will no doubt enable him to make good on his threats to cut funding for the Iraq war effort, thereby forcing the withdrawal of American troops.”

http://www.cecilwhig.com/articles/2006/11/09/ralph/73.txt

“Troops Fear The Loss Of Rumsfeld

Indeed, some members of the 101st Airborne Division and other troops approached by The Times as they prepared to fly home from Baghdad airport yesterday expressed concern that Robert Gates, Mr Rumsfeld’s successor, and the Democrat-controlled Congress, might seek to wind down their mission before it was finished.”

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008482.php

“Total U.S. Withdrawal

In December 1974, the Democratic majority in Congress passed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, which cut off all military funding to the South Vietnamese government and made unenforceable the peace terms. . . . ”

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

Effects on US Military

“When all is said and done in connection with the Pentagon management shakeup, the Baker commission report and the Dems actively taking control of the legislative branch, I for one will be watching the reenlistment rate among the troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. I suspect many troops will opt to return to civilian life if they feel that they no longer have support from the policymakers, rather than be jerked around by people who think like John Kerry. And if the re-up rate goes down, original enlistments will probably decrease, too. Nobody wants to fight in a war that the movers and shakers don’t want to win. That was true in Korea and Vietnam, and it’s true now.

Any new trends should be apparent by March or so, if they are to happen. I guarantee you that any such change will be spun by the lamestream media as Bush’s fault, probably accompanied by NYT and WaPo opinion pieces bemoaning what a dumb thing it was to get rid of Rumsfeld.

It sure would be interesting if Charlie Rangel’s (D-NY) idea of reinstating the draft had to be implemented by a Democratic congress in order to maintain military force levels. I wonder what the political fallout from that would be in ’08.

As an aside, I also think that diminished capacity of our conventional forces, especially the Army and Marines, tends to make nuclear war more likely, because weakness encourages the enemy to attack, and when you must fight, you fight with what you have. The alternative is capitulation.”

http://outoftherace.blogspot.com/2006/11/bellwether.html

“Speak Up, Democrats

Al Qaeda and Iran are both gloating over the U.S. election results. AQ’s chief in Iraq, Abu Hamza Al-Muhajir, actually mocked Bush while praising the Democrats’ victory in the congressional mid-term contests. According to an audio tape message attributed to Al-Mujahir, Americans had “voted for something reasonable in the last elections.”

Meanwhile, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stated that the Republican defeat at the polls “is actually an obvious victory for the Iranian nation.”

The White House has declined to comment on these statements, but what about the Democrats? Doesn’t it behoove the Democrats to correct the claim that their ascension to power is good news for the enemies of the U.S.? Don’t they want to move quickly to disabuse Al Qaeda of the idea that Democrats represent something that these butchers deem “reasonable”?

There’s even a precedent for speaking out right away. Bill Clinton, following his victory in 1992, addressed the enemies of the U.S. in one of his first statements as the new president-elect. Couching his remarks in terms of the transition from one president and party to another, Clinton said, “The greatest mistake any adversary could make would be to doubt America’s resolve” as power changed hands.

Clinton reminded the world that “America has only one president at a time,” and added that, “even as America’s administrations change, America’s fundamental interests do not.”

http://iraqpundit.blogspot.com/2006/11/speak-up-democrats.html

Terror Cells in UK

“What I can say is that today, my officers and the police are working to contend with some 200 groupings or networks, totalling over 1600 identified individuals (and there will be many we don’t know) who are actively engaged in plotting, or facilitating, terrorist acts here and overseas. The extremists are motivated by a sense of grievance and injustice driven by their interpretation of the history between the West and the Muslim world. This view is shared, in some degree, by a far wider constituency. If the opinion polls conducted in the UK since July 2005 are only broadly accurate, over 100,000 of our citizens consider that the July 2005 attacks in London were justified.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2447690,00.html

“Blair Says Terrorist Threat to Last ‘a Generation

Prime Minister Tony Blair said today that the threat from home-grown Islamic terrorism would last “a generation,” reinforcing a highly unusual warning by the head of the MI5 domestic intelligence agency that some 1,600 suspects in 200 terrorist conspiracies were under surveillance.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/10/world/europe/11terrorcnd.html?ex=1320814800&en=c1835b1c5134183c&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

WHILE ENGLAND SLEPT : A Survey of World Affairs 1932 – 1938 (BOOKS THAT CHANGED THE WORLD)

http://www.amazon.com/WHILE-ENGLAND-SLEPT-Affairs-CHANGED/dp/B000ERQCWE

Why England Slept

Why England Slept (ISBN 0313228744) is the published version of a thesis written by John F. Kennedy while in his senior year at Harvard College. Published in 1940,[1] the book examines the failures of the British government to take steps to prevent World War II and is notable for its uncommon stance of not castigating the appeasement policy of the British government at the time, instead suggesting that an earlier confrontation between the United Kingdom and Nazi Germany could well have been more disastrous in the long run. One could consider these to be bold words given that at the time of writing the German army was sweeping across Europe and appeared near-invincible.

Its title was an allusion to Winston Churchill’s 1938 book While England Slept, which also examined the buildup of German power.

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

The US has just cast the single NO vote against UN efforts to draft a Small Arms Treaty. There were 139 in favor, 24 abstaining.

Where is the outrage? The media is not reporting this story. Some bloggers mention it.

Sources you might use:

UN Wire

October 27, 2006

http://r.smartbrief.com/resp/eJAceIbLcreJguCiaWueLilW

http://www.fcnl.org/press/releases/unsmallarms102606.htm

Small arms contribute to up to 1000 deaths a day around the world. They fuel political instablity, make it possible to turn children into soldiers, hinder efforts to deal with world hunger. The US talks much against large weapons but seems to view small ones as a profit center.

This vote to work towards a treaty has the support of the other arms exporting countries. The US worked against the treaty in the planning stages (last meeting in June, 2006) but has been unable to persuade any others to join in opposition.

If we want a more peacefull world, we have to develop ways to solve problems without resorting to violence. Actually, violence never does solve problems. It only creates a distraction.

President Bush has complained that his critics have no plan for winning the war in Iraq. Nor have I heard of any ‘secret plan’ from the buck-stopper. So let me, in all modesty, propose a ten-point plan for victory in Iraq:

1. Have Congress declare that a ‘state of war’ exists.

2. Invoke war powers and pass laws making criticism of the war a crime.

3. Reinstate the draft and induct a million your American men and women into the armed forces.

4. Repeal all the tax cuts made in the last six years.

5. Impose new taxes as required to balance the budget.

6. Disband the parliament of Iraq.

7. Appoint an Iraqi puppet to be our strongman.

8. Restructure the army and security forces of Iraq, removing those responsible for sectarian killings.

9. Seal the borders of Iraq and destroy any arms dumps left over from the days of Saddam Hussain.

10. Perform house-to-house searches throughout Iraq and confiscate all arms and ammunition.

This is the only credible and comprehensive victory plan on the table. If President Bush is truly serious about victory, he should endorse this plan and sell it to the American people. He has two years to begin the implementation this victory plan.

To paraphrase the late Senator Richard Russell of Georgia, expect that the pacification of Iraq will take ten years, cost 50,000 American lives, and we still might lose. But this is the only available plan that envisions winning — whatever that means!

I’ll repost my suggestion on the other thread.