Search for "Blonde", Get Fired...

Searching for "Blonde" with Google in 2011

Robert Zellner was fired from his Cedarburg School District job as biology teacher for searching for the word "Blonde" in Google on his computer at work.  Zellner, an employee of the district for eleven years, was also the president of the teachers union for the Cedarburg school district (full ruling here.)

Apparently over the course of time a contentious relationship developed between Mr. Zellner and the school board.  That issue aside, however, Zellner signed an "Employee Access to Networked Information Resources" policy in 2005 that indicated he was responsible for the use of his computer, the information he searched for on that computer, and would be held accountable should that computer be used in such a way as to violate the policy.  The policy also indicated that the computer and its use were not private, that viewing pornography was strictly forbidden and would be a violation of the policy, and that the his computer usage may be monitored by a supervisor at any time.

Now Zellner, probably in an attempt to cause friction because of his union affiliation and for other related reasons, explicitly searched with Google for "blonde" - apparently with "safe search" disabled - about a year later.  That search revealed 20 or so Google thumbnails of what I would suppose were naked blonds.  He then clicked on one of the links which brought him to another site, www.ardentes.free.frblonde.com, according to the complaint.

Total time Googling - 67 seconds.

(Now according to the ruling Zellner also had pictures of students in bikini's from a biology trip to Hawaii.  The court acknowledges that none of these images "inappropriate" and that they had been subsequently deleted from his computer.)

In any case, Zellner was fired for "violating policy".

While I don't see a problem with Zellner being fired for this reason I am troubled by some other aspects of this.

Certainly searching for "blonde" (which I did with Google Image above) does not guarantee the display of pornography (as the image above shows - the only out-of-place image being Bob Dylan - can you find him (Waldo)?).  This search was performed with a "Moderate Search" - whatever that is.  There is a place to turn change this.  Doing so does not yield significantly different results (though some images are inappropriate).

So Zellner was really playing roulette - pulling the Google search lever and seeing what comes up.  Perhaps a set of images worth losing your job over - perhaps not.  Nor is Google deterministic - the same search conducted seconds or minutes later might yield completely different results because of how Google's search algorithms work.

In no case are these images as bad as the unsolicited spam I periodically find in my inbox.  Should I or would I be fired for receiving spam?  I have to select the email (though not explicitly open it) to delete it - which reveals some of the content - with the Apple Mail program.  Is that an offense worth being fired over?

Now Google, as far as I can see, does not even own these images nor do they have copyrights to them (though some use by Google is considered fair use and some is not - depending on where you live, etc.).

Google simply takes them, makes thumbnails out of them, and display them without concern over copyright or ownership (though they are left open to potential liability if they could have done a better job with the "fair use"part if they don't "thumbnailize" them appropriately...)

Does this make Google an accomplice to Zellner - display the copywritten pornographic images of others on his behalf?

Too me this is reminiscent of the "drug laws," "vice laws," "gambling laws" and so on...

Basically the model with the "drug laws" is: A) drugs are illegal, B) the government does nothing to stop the free and widely availability of drugs, C) if you are dumb enough to get caught its all your fault.

Similarly with porn (and specifically in the case of Zellner): A) its illegal on his computer/at his workplace, B) the school district, Google, and everyone else does nothing to stop its free, easy and wide availability, C) its Zellner's fault if he's caught.

So in fact one might generalize the government model as:

1. X is illegal (a firing offense, etc.)
2. We do nothing to stop, control, or limit X or its impact on your life or your children's lives.
3. Its all your fault if you somehow become involved in X and we catch you.

In the case where a government is actually involved in X to some extent, let's say in gambling, then they simply create a "license" for X and require those with a license to display a small notice that says "if X is ruining your life call 1-800-X for help."

Similarly for cigarettes.

Now apparently Zellner having pictures of bikini-clad underage girls from his class (he was a biology teacher and presumably on the very same trip to Hawaii) does not represent a problem to the court - how ironic.

At the end of the day Zellner was done in by his own arrogance and/or poor judgement.

But the law is taking a  complicated and troubling turn here...

For example, should someone spam the entire US Government with child porn images what would be the result?

Would everyone be fired and arrested?  After all, there would be child porn on all of their hard drives.  The employees couldn't make the argument that its not "theirs" because the law sees it on their employers hard drive as their responsibility (but that doesn't hold water for true child pornographers).

No, I am sure a "special case" would be made of it - oh, these workers weren't responsible - it was done maliciously, etc.  They would be treated specially because they are part of the "elite".

But this is the slow and insidious Orwellian transformation of our society into the "ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS" of Animal Farm.

If you are someone important, work the government, etc. then the laws which apply to the "common man" do not apply to you.  My guess is that someone like Zellner foolishly (for him) got on the wrong side of the "authorities" with his union antics.  This ultimately caused a "rift" between him and his superiors.

Had this not happened I am sure that he, his boss, and the school board would have had many happy hours of enjoyment with the bikini-clad pictures of their under age charges...

21, $55K a year, and no debt...

I was reading about Walter Gasper in a recent WSJ article (here, and no, he is not the Indian girl in the linked photo).

According to the article, Mr. Gasper, who is 21, "... has no college degree [and] his annual pay tops $55,000. Unlike many young adults, he has no college debt."

You might wonder what a young man that age does to make such good money.

He works in manufacturing - more specifically in a machine shop.

The reason I am writing about Mr. Gasper today is that he represents what's wrong with today's educational system.  Mr. Gasper started out under the wing of Jeff Kelly, owner of the Hamill Manufacturing Company, when he was just 17 years old as an apprentice.

I met Jeff maybe 15 years ago as part of some CEO network I belong to at the time.  Hamill manufactures huge items made of metal - pipes and valve for nuclear things and big power plants and such.  They have lathes large enough to hold an up-ended semi cab.  Things like that.

Jeff was always interested in helping kids have careers in manufacturing.  I remember touring his plant and seeing a bunch of young people working on molds for Sony.  Sony at that time had a large manufacturing plant nearby that made the big, heavy 31-inch glass TV tubes and televisions.  The molds were used to press the glass into the TV tube.  Like the "wax on/wax off" stuff from the Karate Kid this kids where hand-polishing these molds.  Lots of hours were spent at this and I guess it was kind of a test in some ways...

One of the thing I liked about Jeff was that he was committed to helping young people enter his line of work - it was something we both agreed upon.  Like Jeff I have hired and trained young people in software and aspects of printing and publishing - albeit on a much smaller scale.

One of the most satisfying things you can do in your life is overseeing a young person progress from a blob of foolish, impetuous raw talent into a professional.

And this is where what is called "education" today is a complete and utter failure.

In the real world "education" is much different than what is sold to parents by colleges and universities.

At least from my perspective as a business owner the idea of "education" is teaching someone enough about a trade or skill so that they can make a living at it.  (BTW, "make a living" means living in on your own - often with a spouse or significant other - not living in mom's basement.) That way the trade or line of business will have a steady supply of young talent coming on board.  I guess you sort of like to leave a trail of educated youth behind you as a way to "give back" to society.

As a youth my elders in manufacturing, electronics and software gave me chances for education, training and advancement in the same way - just as I imagine its been done for tens or hundreds of thousands of years.

To me this is a much more satisfying means to "give back" to society because people will always squander monetary aid.

Part of this process, however, involves things that today are considered evil and unfair by "Big Education."

For one, you must engage a young person, as the WSJ points out, with an aptitude or talent for the particular career.  Over the years of doing this myself I have run across a lot of young people who wanted into the IT world for money - and I have always declined helping them because without the inborn desire to be engaged in geeky, techie parts of IT they will soon lose interest.

Not everyone has talent but almost everyone covets money.

If someone that comes to me for training is only interested in money I always politely suggest they become professional gambler, lawyer or thief instead.

Educational institutions today, however, have come to believe that everyone has the exact same levels of interests and aptitudes (whether they do or not) and has no problem taking their money in order to attempt (or pretend) to teach them a trade or skill.

And therein lies the problem - its a waste of time to teach someone without aptitude - you as a teach won't be happy nor will the pupil be happy learning something they have no passion for.

In the old ways the "teacher" never takes on an apprentice that doesn't have the potential.  No potential equals no opportunity.

But today's educational system thinks this is unfair.  That we must all be created equal and there must all have the same abilities.  (Of course the truth is that the educational system only thinks this to fleece the parents out of money - in truth what you do with your education once you get to the university doesn't matter as long as mommy and daddy's checks clear.)

Now I have heard for decades the whining of educational "elites" who say that little Jr. cannot succeed in life without a balanced, well rounded college education.  This is, of course, complete nonsense.  If "education" were actually required to do things how would human society have progressed to the point of creating educational systems in the first place?

You see, Mr. Gasper is probably quite able to learn on his own - as he has demonstrated from his ability to make a decent living at age 21.  If he can learn about machine shop skills (which require math and some degree of science) then I am sure he can read a book, Google topics on the internet, and so forth to advance his own education right from the comfort of his own living room - all without the need to go tens or hundreds of dollars of debt.

(I image that Mr. Gasper has probably even mastered simple fractions!  Not the sort of thing you find in a college graduate these days.)

And this freedom is an affront to "Big Education".

My God!  Mr. Gasper is out there on his own learning, reading and thinking about global warming, politics, and so on all by himself.  Without the support and skill of learned elite intellectuals to tell him what and how to think!

Yet my guess is is that Mr. Gasper will do quite well on his own because now he can now fund his own education.

At his $55K USD salary I am sure he can afford an internet connection and a laptop (total cost about $1K a year for a cable internet and another $500 for a laptop - more than the library card I used to get my education but still quite affordable at that level of salary).  And I hope that's what he does.

Of course, his poor, debt-ridden peers from high school, steered away from manufacturing by stupid but well meaning guidance counselors, will pop out of college owing as much as a new house costs or more into a dead end job market were scoring a job at Wendy's will be considered a big win.

Will these graduates be smarter, better off, will they know more?

I very much doubt it because someone like Mr. Gasper will have spent the same amount of time learning to get by on his own - paying his own bills and paying for his own education - while little Johnny at the local college or big university will spend his days smoking pot, bartering passing grades from professors for who knows what, and borrowing money like the US government.

(Do I think "big education" is all bad - yes, for the most part.  Some skills, like being a doctor, are perhaps better learned in an academic setting - but certainly "big education" is not required.)

Sadly people have come to believe that the only way to "get an education" is school.

Not surprisingly most things in life happen quite well without school (and happened before there even was a school). 

Of course the educational elite finds this all nonsense.  Yet Mr. Kelly cannot find skilled employees... I wonder why?

Certainly Mr. Gasper will learn the lessons of like if get gets laid off, takes drugs, or if his employer is bought out, and so on.  But no more so than the lessons being learned in big state Universities where the gravy train of public funding is running out.

Only time will telll...

Anonymous vs Sony

I found this sort of "threat" posted April 24, 2011, 8:20 pm by Anonymous here:

Dear Greedy Motherfuckers SONY,
Congratulations! You are now receiving the attention of Anonymous. Your recent legal actions against fellow internet citizens, GeoHot and Graf_Chokolo have been deemed an unforgivable offense against free speech and internet freedom, primary sources of free lulz (and you know how we feel about lulz.)

You have abused the judicial system in an attempt to censor information about how your products work. You have victimized your own customers merely for possessing and sharing information, and continue to target those who seek this information. In doing so you have violated the privacy of thousands of innocent people who only sought the free distribution of information. Your suppression of this information is motivated by corporate greed and the desire for complete control over the actions of individuals who purchase and use your products, at least when those actions threaten to undermine the corrupt stranglehold you seek to maintain over copywrong, oops, “copyright”.

Your corrupt business practices are indicative of a corporate philosophy that would deny consumers the right to use products they have paid for, and rightfully own, in the manner of their choosing. Perhaps you should alert your customers to the fact that they are apparently only renting your products? In light of this assault on both rights and free expression, Anonymous, the notoriously handsome rulers of the internet, would like to inform you that you have only been “renting” your web domains. Having trodden upon Anonymous’ rights, you must now be trodden on.

If you disagree with the disciplinary actions against your private parts domains, then we trust you can also understand our motivations for these actions. You own your domains. You paid for them with your own money. Now Anonymous is attacking your private property because we disagree with your actions. And that seems, dare we say it, “wrong.” Sound familiar?

Let Anonymous teach you a few important lessons that your mother forgot:
1. Don’t do it to someone else if you don’t want it to be done to you.
2. Information is free.
3. We own this. Forever.
As for the “judges” and complicit legal entities who have enabled these cowards: You are no better than SONY itself in our eyes and remain guilty of undermining the well-being of the populace and subverting your judicial mandate.
We are Anonymous.
We are Legion.
We do not Forgive.
We do not Forget.
Expect us.

So the concept here is kind of interesting given that Sony has now lost about 100 million credit card and personal information records.

(BTW, Anonymous, two days after this, say that they did not do it here.  However, Wired yesterday reports here that the Anonymous "We are legion" tag line was found inside the Sony systems.)

Basically that when you purchase something you "own" it in the eyes of Anonymous - lock, stock and barrel - as it were. The idea, apparently, is that purchasing something, like a PlayStation/3, gives you leave to do whatever you like with it as its now your private property.

Now what people do not realize is that they are not "purchasing" the software on the system (see the Sony "Terms of Service" here).   Instead you are purchasing some form of "right" to make use of the software (and in the case of the PS/3 gaming network) access to the network.  (Software here includes images, music, programs, etc. - not just "software".)

Think "ski pass".

You buy a ski pass that allows you on the lift for a given day - you are not purchasing the lift, the ski slope, or anything else - those things are the property of the ski lodge.  You purchase a "right" to do something, not the something itself.  Similarly when you buy a book (or CD or anything similar) you do not purchase unlimited rights to do whatever you like with the content of the book or music - only the right to own the book for the purposes of, well, using it as a book.

Copyright law, which has been around for some 300 hundred or so years (see Wikipedia), is generally used for this purpose.  The original author owns the material (whether words or music or software).  Others, such as a book publisher, licenses the rights to reproduce the material in exchange for a royalty - that is a payment to the original author.

The idea is that for each book the publisher creates, for example, the author is paid, let's say, one dollar.  Now if I were to purchase a book and then make copies and sell them I would be bypassing the copyright of the book and the license of the publisher.  I would make all the dollars and the original author would get nothing.

As time has progressed things like software became governed (by law and court decisions both in the US and internationally) by a more sophisticated type of license agreement call the "shrink wrap" license.  The idea here is that when you buy something like a software package it comes in a sealed box.  By opening the box you implicitly agree to the license inside.

Today the box has been done away with entirely and we now have the "I Agree" button - same concept.  By "Agreeing" you agree to the terms of use of the network or whatever software you buy.

So it seems that Anonymous has missed the point of the Sony Playstation - purchasing the physical box does not entitle you to do whatever you like with the software on the box.  Certainly you can do whatever you like with the box "in private, i.e., not connected to a network" - you can smash it up, make love to it, eat it, whatever you like.

You can probably even make videos of this for Youtube.

But once you start messing about with the software on the box you are entering the world of the "Terms of Service" because by purchasing the box you have no doubt somewhere along the line agree to those terms (most likely when the box first turns on it displays some sort of information about this).

Now being an old geezer in the software industry for thirty some years I have seen the progression of all of this licensing stuff.

My guess is that the kind folks at Anonymous are all about 25 years old and have only been involved in software, as it were, for the last ten or so.  Of course during this time most of their influences regarding the owner ship of intellectual property (which is what the concept of copyright is about) has probably been limited to things like limewire.com and BitTorrent - sites for the "sharing" of content.

These sites rely on the notion that what you purchase, say a song or Adobe Creative Suite CS5, is yours without limit, i.e., not constrained by copyright or license.  Hence the notion of freely distributing copies to anyone you know or don't know.

Now certainly there are cases where this is allowed, for example, copies of Linux or Fedora released under a GNU license which allows copying.

But most things owned by businesses are not licensed that way.

My guess is that Anonymous, if they are involved, or the true perpetrators of the Sony thefts who ever they are, will have a chance to go to school on copyright law if they are caught or apprehended by law enforcement.  Especially since Sony will be bowing before Congress soon to explain the lose of 100 million user records.

Sharing Your Browser Cache?

Some people and companies think that sharing your browser cache with the world is a good way to use the internet.

For example, voyurl.com allows you to share this information as does dscover.me.

I don't know, maybe I am too old, but do I really want to examine this sort of uncensored (yes, you can limit what's published but do you really want to rely on that) drivel?  In a particular situation, say work, where you are involved in some sort of group research this kind of thing might be handy - publishing a list of locations you've searched so your coworkers don't duplication your effort.  But in general, this is a lot like most of social networking: getting your fifteen minutes of fame 5 microseconds at a time.

(Though you've got to love the intro on dscover.me: "Automagically share what you're up to on the web with friends and followers in real-time."  Anyone using the word "automatically" has to be a real geek!)

I took a look at the promo quotes at dscover.me.  For example, Jessica says: "My boyfriend and I share travel sites so we can see which spots we're looking at on tripadvisor. Makes browsing more fun..." 

I imagine the fun of this will last until Jessica's boyfriend inadvertently publishes a link to a nude beach nearby the travel sites they've been checking out...  (Sorry honey, that link was Bob - he was over at the house for a beer and...  Kind of like "Honey I killed Osama bin Laden last night but I buried the body at sea before I got home..". but I digress.)

For me the beauty of the web is that there are always links that come up that seem interesting.  Sometimes they really are and sometimes they are crap.  For example, lately I have been searching for things related to iPad/iPhone development.  Mostly this involves developer.apple.com and places like stackoverflow.com - the very height of geekdome.

But there are many other aspects to what I do that have lead to places like www.adafruit.com where I picked up an Arduino for some electronic prototyping related to my project.  Adafruit was found by surreptitious discovery while researching the Microsoft Connect technology.

My interests are wide and varied and I imagine that few people would be interested in what I am doing at any given point in time.

Additionally what I do is often related to work and hence off-limits to general sharing.

No, this is just like Facebook where people publish things like "Just go home from work, taking a shower..." - do I really need to know this?

Perhaps if you are a young geek this will be fun - just like sharing your location on your iPhone.

But there are substantial security risks in all of this - especially if you aren't careful about what you share.

Then there is the constant stream of Russian brides awaiting my proposal, golden Rolex's, and on line pharmacies filling my inbox - almost all with web links.  Its easy enough to accidentally click on something in there which no doubt leads to a virus or worse.  Fortunately I have a Mac so I am virtually immune to the plethora of nasty virus associated with all this.

I guess just like in the physical world some sort of "protection" will probably be required before the "sharing" gets too far along...

Perhaps the wisest use of this technology would be to place it on your kids computer so that everywhere they go is posted to your browser as well...  that will keep little Jr off the porn sites and homeworkanswers.com.

In fact, you could probably share the kids browser history with grandma and Santa Claus... that way at Christmastime little Jr will have no say in the fact he receives a lump of coal instead of that new PlayStation he was looking for.

Justice At Last...

A very interesting decision has been handed down by the United States Ninth Circuit Court of appeals.

The decision (linked as PDF here) says in part:

"The district court relied on our decision in LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka, 581 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2009), ...  - that an employee exceeds authorized access when he or she obtains information from the computer and uses it for a purpose that violates the employer’s restrictions on the use of the information.


We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3731, and we agree with the government."

This is interesting because, previous to this point, when an employee made use of information (such as customer lists, sales leads, etc.) or software, documentation, data or other content provided by their employer the employee could utilize that software for their own purposes and the business had little ability to stop them.

Sure it was wrong, but if the employee was remote or acted surreptitiously there was little you could do practically to stop it.


Any business owner knows the story.  You have a remote or traveling employee with a laptop.  That laptop contains your proprietary business software (sales data, sales leads, show leads, whatever) which the employee is authorized for use in making sales calls, as a demonstration system or to perform work.  Then the employee is terminated.  Suddenly you find that the employee has not returned that software and information to you.  Or you find email trails of surreptitious acts, unauthorized purchases, and other anecdotal evidence your property has been misused.


What control did you have over that property, software or data? 

Very little with an unscrupulous employee.

Even with written documentation such as email or other evidence that your software or data is being misused there was little you could do.


This opinion, however, changes all of that.

Now this type of unscrupulous activity is placed on par with "hacking" - such as stealing credit card numbers.

The opinion relates to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (see this link) adopted in 1986.

Today this means that anyone engaged in the use of software (or the accessing of data) which they have been provided via some work-related association for any purpose outside the express use permitted by the employer is guilty of a Federal cyber crime, the punishment for which can be severe: “knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period.”

As a business owner with remote employees this has always been an issue.  You issue some employee a computer and/or software to use, for example, for sales related activities such as demos and so on.  Later you find that the employee was off trying to use that very same software and/or computer to better their own personal life at your expense.

Well now its a Federal crime.

A crime with severe penalties.

An when you examine the statute you see that it would also cover things like email servers, remote databases, internal FTP sites, and so so on that are part of work related activities.  This is because they are computer systems and are limited and restricted by the business.


Fortunately the commission of criminal acts by an employee supersedes any type of agreement you might have made with that employee regarding previous working arrangements.  Agreements and other activities used to cover up or hide such acts could also be considered conspiracy - especially if their intention was to prevent the discovery of such acts.  And certainly reporting crimes to the authorities cannot be limited by agreements either.


This opinion says it all...

The Deathly Hallows

The stink bugs are again on the rise as summer approaches.  As I wrote here in "Stink Bug Remedy" we have a lot of them - more than our poor spider plants can help us capture.

So, after some experimenting I created a "Deathly Hallows" for stink bugs (see image).

This took some planning to execute but so far it seems to work quite well.

We've noticed that they congregate when its warm around the kitchen lights.  So I reasoned that if I could come up with some sort of trap that I could put by the light I would be able to get rid of some.

I tracked down a supply of the round flypaper tubes at www.domyownpestcontrol.com.  They were fairly cheap so I bought quite a few.

I attached them under the light fixture so that each hung down right below the light.  (I only tried one the first night.  Please note that our kitchen ceiling is high enough so that I can walk under these things without getting them in my hair - and I am six feet tall.)

Viola. 

The next morning I had about two dozen stink bugs.  Its rumored that if you kill them they stink and draw their friends - good - the more the merrier.

I rigged a few more around the rest of the kitchen lights and around some other lights as well.  Fortunately it got colder since I set this up and the remaining inside bugs have withdrawn for now.

We also had stink bugs on a southern facing window.  However there was a large hornets nest on that side of the house which the exterminator took care.  The spillover of whatever chemicals that he uses seemed to wipe out the window-based population of stink bugs along with the hornets.

Some Dogs are Betas

Today's educational system produces a useless product.

Forty years ago the idea behind an education was to make sure everyone could do basic things - read, write, add, subtract, multiply, divide, understand simple fractions, use a library, have a basic grasp of science.  The idea, of course, was that the educational system did not know what you would do with your life: become a rocket scientist or a garbage man - it didn't matter - at least you could perform basic functions necessary for life.

In those days it was not assumed that everyone was "the same" - some were slow learners, some were less intelligent, some were fast learners, some were more intelligent.

The school system did not care about this except that they tailored the speed with which you were taught with your ability to learn.  If you learned slowly you might not get as much coverage of a subject of those who learned quickly - but you still got the basics.

The fundamental assumption was that someone with a good grasp of basic reading and math could figure out and learn on their own if they needed to: if you wanted to be a body man at an auto shop you could go to the library, find a book, take it home, read it, and, most importantly, understand it.  Most people were not expected to get a college education but to instead get a job - a job where these skills would probably be needed as well.

Standardized test where used by researchers to see how the educational system was going.  No one took them too seriously and they did not, as far as I know, have anything to do with the amount of money a school received.

The idea that not everyone is "the same" is not new. 

In the world of dogs, for example, not all dogs are alphas.  There are plenty of beta dogs as well.  (Alpha dogs are the "leaders" of the pack and dominant.  Their job is to lead the pack, mate, and generally look after things.  Betas tend to be followers and require the alphas to protect them.)

Your position in dog society depends on you.  If you are a happy beta then that's what you stay.  You can challenge other dogs and try to move up or you can move out and try and find a better life elsewhere (adapt, move on or die as it were).  Nature ensures that all dogs in the pack have a place.

Today's educational system offends nature. 

It assumes everyone is "equal in ability" and tailors the course work to the least able and slowest learners.  It does this to ensure that they do not "feel badly" about themselves.  The truth, of course, is that everyone is not equal in ability.  And while the "educational establishment" feels good about themselves for this those with less ability are not fooled.

You can see this on the "T-ball" field where no one is to "keep score".

As the game progresses each and every child assess the score, their ability, the ability of their friends and so on. 

Only a fool would think the kids are not competing and not keeping score.

Movies like "Race to Nowhere" and "Waiting for Superman" discuss the plight of today's students (see this article).  They discuss why there is educational failure and what can be done about it.

Unfortunately they do not address the truth:  Not all dogs are alphas and not every child is the smartest kid on the block.

However, rather than focusing on teaching each child as much as they are able to learn and helping the child to assess what are good choices in life based on their own, personal ability today's educational system tells each child that, like the T-ball field I mentioned, that everyone is "the same".

None are smarter, none are less smart.  It teaches its better to hold back the more able so the less able feel good - yet the less able see this and in my estimation understand the basic unfairness of.

In the real world there are always people more and less able than you. 

That is a simple given.

Its what you do about it that matters.  If you sit home waiting for lawyers, schools or governments to "fix" this problem your wait will be long because no one but you can make more out of you than there is now.  And meanwhile those who realize that doing the best they can with what they are given will be moving ahead - ahead without the benefit of those who expect others to make the playing field level for them.

In today's society the former group (the sit at home and waits) are growing rapidly - the growth fueled by government hand outs, bogus educational models and the like.  And why not, since by definition there is always "someone smarter than you" you can always feel your life is unfair - particularly when things like schools and society pound this into your head.

The "do the best they can" group, on the other hand, is burdened with supporting both themselves and the growing group of those waiting for a "fix".

According to the linked WSJ article leaders in education reform think like this (Jeanne Allen who heads the Center for Education Reform in Washington DC):  "You can't teach critical thinking," she says. She argues that kids cannot possibly develop problem-solving skills without a base of knowledge. How can one analyze a piece of literature, she asks, without knowing any vocabulary? Can students solve math problems without being able to multiply and divide?"

This is complete insanity. 

Anyone who owns more than two pets realizes that pets can discern whether one is receiving more treats than the other - without even the ability to count, much less multiply and divide.

The problem is very, very simple.

Instead of making sure each child can read, write, add, subtract, and so on to the best of that child's ability the educational system makes sure that each child is shoe-horned into an "equality box" where their individual abilities are second to the educators belief that everyone is must be "equal" (see "Teaching Your Child" which I wrote about five years ago).

For example, arguing whether "rote memorization" is better than "critical thinking".  Of course both are important and some will be better with or the other.  But even dogs can "think critically" when they need to - perhaps to find an extra treat.

And dogs are smart enough to discern the differences between those with more and less ability, to discern the differences between and alpha and beta, to discern that males and females are in fact different, and to see that all pack members contribute as best they can.

Why have we and our society lost this ability?

I went to a grade school taught by nuns.  They divided the children up into groups based on their ability to learn and made sure (with physical punishment to back it up) the children gave it their best shot.  At the same time those more able were not allowed to ridicule or make fun of those with lesser ability.

Nuns knew their lives would be judged by how they treated their students and felt it was their God-given responsibility to turn out the children with the best education possible.

Even the least able were taught as much as they could be.

Today's educational system is primarily the business of teachers unions.  A business where the quality of the product cannot be objectively judged lest the result be an "unfair" work environment.  (Notice that the actual business of learning does not come into play here.)

(And to be fair, society's concept that every child is a genius is partially to blame as well.  Many parents do not stand behind teachers and instead demand their child be treated specially.)

In my time nuns viewed providing an education to everyone as a life long avocation - one in which you literal went to hell if you betrayed its sacred trust to do all you could for your charges.

It looks like we're already there.