E Pluribus Unum

The 20th century was dubbed "The American Century." That's nice. But you're fooling yourself if you think that we've arrived at the 21st century as an unassailable Empire.

The fact is, we must never stop thinking about the long-term future -- where we want to be, how we want to get there, and what obstacles might be in our way.

But conservative Republicans, and their corporate sponsors, are notorious for taking a short-term approach to the future. For example, Hal observes that the elimination of high progressive taxes at the top end of the scale has probably led to a drop in overall investment in R & D:

High progressive rates provide a strong incentive for companies not to fund the additional twelve yachts for the corporate executives and to take these funds and invest them else where in the companies interest - for example, in worker's salaries or - shudder - research and development.

In other words, corporate America took a look at the 21st century and decided that "the future is now, baby!" Bust up the future and sell it off for parts -- what a concept!

So I'm worried that my as-yet-unborn grandchildren will look back at the 21st century and dub it "The Chinese Century." If you think I'm being silly, go back and read that article by Mark Helprin.

Go -- now. I'll wait up for you. Just come back when you're done and pick up where you left off...

[pause]

Have you read it? Good.

Now, let me tell you this: those that want to "shrink the government," those that want to "give you back your money," are really taking away your future. Don't believe me? Go ahead -- call 'em up. You'll get a recorded message that says, "the future is now, baby!"

But we know that's baloney. We all know that the best way to face the challenges of the future is to face them together. You know that. History shows us that, time and again.

I guarantee you that China knows this. But we don't have to look to China to figure it out -- Ben Franklin said it best, over two hundred years ago: "We must hang together or we will certainly hang separately."

What can we do to stay vital? Well, for starters, we can insure that our kids are at the top of their class, worldwide, in math and science. We have our work cut out for us:

U.S. eighth-grade students are improving in science and math compared with international peers, but the nation's fourth-graders have stagnant scores and are slipping behind in both subjects, according to a study of achievement across the globe...

Asian countries are setting the pace in advanced science and math, said Ina Mullis, co-director of the International Study Center at Boston College, which manages the study.

As one example, 44 percent of eighth-graders in Singapore scored at the most advanced level in math, as did 38 percent in Taiwan. Only 7 percent in the United States did.

"We have to keep at it, and maybe even step up the pace," Mullis said. "Even though a lot of people are working very hard on reforms, we don't seem to reap commensurate benefits."

Business and academic leaders say such scores warn that students aren't getting prepared for a global economy, a point Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan often makes.

"The lack of improvement at the elementary level does not surprise us," said Gerald Wheeler, executive director of the National Science Teachers Association. "We've been hearing from many elementary teachers that they are not teaching science because of the increased emphasis on literacy.

"Science is essentially being squeezed out of the elementary classroom."

Upon reading this, I'm reminded of the current struggle to establish "Intelligent Design" in our childrens' science classrooms. I'm reminded of a comment from a regular here at E Pluribus Unum who has said that the first objective of his childrens' education is for their souls to be saved; learning how to read comes second.

And when I think of that, I resolve to re-double my efforts, to do what I can to insure a brighter future, here on Earth, in this lifetime.

P.S. Hal sends along a link to an article from The Panda's Thumb, wherein the author debunks the "Intelligent Design" movement.