WASHINGTON -- Science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education are, of course, fundamental. Across the nation, high school science teachers have been rededicating themselves to promote STEM education.
Funding remains a constant problem, and the solutions being offered by some states are wrong-headed.
Case in point is Maryland, where a hotly contested referendum on the Nov. 6 ballot would expand gambling statewide. Proponents have spent millions of dollars on TV ads arguing that gambling revenue will provide much needed funding for the stateís education system.
Opponents note that the other form of legal gambling, state lotteries, has done little or nothing to boost education in the Old Line State.
With Marylandís horse racing industry in decline, and gambling thriving in neighboring West Virginia, itís just as likely that proponents are more interested in keeping the good money being thrown after bad within Marylandís boundaries.
Either way, the proverbial stakes on the outcome of Question 7 in Maryland are high. The Baltimore Sun estimates that supporters of the measure, mostly casino interests, have spent more than $43.5 million while opponents have spent more than $41 million on ceaseless advertising. Only $17 million was spent in Marylandís 2010 campaign for governor.
Imagine the boost to Marylandís education system had even a fraction of the funds wasted on political advertising for a gambling referendum instead been invested in chemistry labs or to retain the stateís best science teachers?
I'm suggesting that in a presidential campaign where there was little or no discussion of the technology sector as an engine of economic growth, the President of the United States at least inserted a paragraph in a speech watched by millions about "discovery and innovation."
Will this alone spur innovation? No. But at least it's back on the agenda after 18 months of mud slinging.
So George, are you suggesting that the Obama faithful like to have great government services, but miss the fact that any such can only come from a sound and strong economy (i.e. an economy that supports business)?
And this is surprising in what way?
A relevant passage from President Obama's victory speech early on the morning of Nov. 7, 2012:
"We want our kids to grow up in a country where they have access to the best schools and the best teachers -- (cheers, applause) -- a country that lives up to its legacy as the global leader in technology and discovery and innovation -- (scattered cheers, applause) -- with all of the good jobs and new businesses that follow."
I don't take the least bit of pleasure from gambling, however as a revenue generating measure, it appears to work quite well.
I've never understood why "counting cards" should be considered a sin, in these casinos. Isn't that the whole point of card games? Can you imagine a bridge player that DOESN'T count cards? Sort of the difference between playing with some measure of intelligence, as opposed to playing like a dumb-*ss!
Overall, naturally, the house has to win. Else, it wouldn't stay in business!!
The House always wins, unless you are the remarkable Blackjack player Don Johnson. As a "Whale" sought by hurting casinos, Johnson fleeced most of the casinos in Atlantic City by evening the odds in his favor, bringing a pile of his own cash, picking his spots, then continuing to play with the House's money until he was asked to leave.
Here's a link to Johnson's remarkable story:
Call me old school and old-fashioned, but I've never been a fan of legalized gambling. States for 30 years have rationalized the revenue upside, but it's essentially preying on the populace and wrapping it in some honorable outcome (education, highways, whatever).
As George points out, the House always wins and the benefits are dubious.
The wearables space is wide open and exploding with opportunity, but that comes with design and sourcing issues, which some believe could be alleviated in part by the strength of the maker community and an open-source approach to this segment.
An engineer who has experienced firsthand the changes that the engineering profession has undergone since the days of Bill Hewlett and David Packard argues that the loss of innovative capacity is the direct result of a vacuum in American business thought leadership.