Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 16 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Nation facing a Sputnik moment again
Published Friday, February 5, 2010
On Oct. 4, 1957, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik I, the first orbital technology in the world. With its launch American assumptions about technological superiority ended abruptly.
President Eisenhower’s White House political advisor, Clarence Randall called the Sputnik “a silly bauble.”
It was not.
The President, a military man, saw the launch for its missile technology, not its space implications, and feared the U.S. would be vulnerable to attack from the Soviets.
But most Americans saw Sputnik as a loss of confidence in the American spirit to lead the world.
Sen. William Fulbright of Arkansas said, “The real challenge we face involves the very roots of our society. It involves our educational system, the source of our knowledge and cultural values.”
Walter Lippmann, intellectual and political writer, had long urged Americans to consecrate themselves to a national purpose … to rescue education.
He wrote, “In really hard times the rules of the game are altered. … Those are the rare occasions when a national will emerges from the scattered, specialized or indifferent blocs of voters who ordinarily elect the politicians.”
But others had little reverence for education or pointy headed professors.
Charles E Wilson, Secretary of State under Eisenhower mocked basic scientific research as studying “what makes grass green and fried potatoes brown.”
Little has changed in politics in America today. We are a divided nation in many of the same ways we were preceding Sputnik. Our Republican friends believe American dominance comes from our military might, not our intellectual capital.
Their distrust of science remains an obstacle to protecting the planet. Republicans think that military power combined with cutting taxes is all the policy, foreign and domestic, the nation needs.
But the President calls for the nation to lead the 21st Century, not by the ideas of the last century, but by the needs of the new century.
President Obama calls for the renewal of education to re-affirm American competitiveness.
He calls on American compassion to save a failing health care system that is far from the standard in the world today. And he calls on new energy technology to prevent the nation from falling farther behind in the crucial arena of energy resourcing.
The president makes these calls because America does not lead in education with high school graduation and knowledge falling below other nations; we do not lead in health care, where among developed nations we have the most citizens lacking access to the best available care; and we have lost the lead in energy technology to nations not waiting to invest in new technology.
We are a great nation, the richest and most powerful on the planet. And we cannot, and should not, grant any edge to others to take any competitive lead in technology.
The current political division is another Sputnik moment, a division where Republicans argue to stay the course of military might and government minimalism.
The Democrats argue that government has a role in advancing our national goals in the 21st Century, a role that is far more than weapons development and tax cuts.
Just as Sputnik changed our direction to a more national focus upon education and science, so too must we make that shift again today.
Once again we are a people called upon to discover a national will to seize the new century with American will and creativity. And as with Sputnik, government can play a role in our united future.
It is not a political fight at all, it is a fight for our future as a great nation.
Jim Crawford is a contributing columnist for The Tribune and a former educator at Ohio University Southern.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by acidburn (anonymous) on February 5, 2010 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2IQVZmHn...
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 5, 2010 at 5:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Isn't new technology great?
Cold keeps Minn. wind turbines from spinning
Wind turbines placed in cities across Minnesota to generate power aren't working because of the cold temperatures.
The Minnesota Municipal Power Association bought 11 turbines for $300,000 each from a company in Palm Springs, Calif.
Special hydraulic fluid designed for colder temperatures was used in the turbines, but it's not working, so neither are the turbines.
http://kstp.com/news/stories/S1390565.sh...
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 5, 2010 at 5:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think it's funny that Crawford thinks that republicans are anti-science. Just the opposite, we are pro-science. Just look at all the cool death-rays that we can come up with ;)
This is another typical Crawford rant where democrats are the good guys and republicans the bad guys.
Hey Crawford, why is it that we lead the world in educational spending per student and yet we fall in the middle of the pack when it comes to educational results? Do you think that throwing more money at it is going to solve the problem?
Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 5, 2010 at 11:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think it's funny that Crawford thinks that Republicans are anti-science
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How could he think that? Maybe because they always choose politics over science, or business over science, scoffing at smoking restrictions and climate change and air pollution and stem cell research and the carcinogenic properties of synthetic chemicals, that kind of stuff. Maybe it's because they've embraced those reliable old voters who think the world is only 6000 years old. The most hilarious moment of the 2008 campaign was the debate where the candidates were asked point-blank if they believe in evolution. Some of them had received the best education it's possible to get in the United States, but they had to weigh their options: say yes and offend the educated, or say no and anger the evangelicals. Weird situation.
Posted by henryjose06 (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 1:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Obama Looks to Pump $3 Billion More Into Education, Get your share get Medical Assistant Degree from http://bit.ly/a80qrv
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Keta, did you know that drinking too much water will kill you? Should we outlaw water? "carcinogen properties of sythethetic properties" You mean like the stuff that if you drank 30 gallons of the concentrated stuff a day, you would increase your chance of getting cancer?
And isn't it democrats who are against genetic engineering for seeds that can increase crop production and feed the poor? How about nuclear power? The science shows that it's safe and waste can be stored safely and yet you guys are still scared of it... It's democrats who are anti-science.
Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yep, synthetic chemicals are great. When our blood is drawn, a hundred of them show up in there, and what they do to us is our problem. Cancer, shmancer - nobody's got cancer. And nuclear energy doesn't have a downside, and climate change is a myth, and smoking wasn't really that bad for you, and burning coal is a good idea, and so is drilling holes looking for fuel to burn as long as we can, because that's worked out so well for us politically and environmentally. Anyone who doesn't agree must be anti-science!
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 2:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yep, synthetic chemicals are great. When our blood is drawn, a hundred of them show up in there, and what they do to us is our problem.
------------------------------
So Keta, are you saying that we should go back to the horse and buggy days? Where do a lot of these chemicals come from?:
These studies have found that all of us are
contaminated with household and industrial chemicals and pesticides...
For example, the average American woman uses up to 25 cosmetics and skin care products a day, containing over 200 chemicals, most of which have not been tested for human health impacts...
Jeez, not only do you want us in the horse and buggy days, you want our woman to be ugly ;)
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh and Keta, nobody isn't saying the climate isn't changing, it's the cause that we have a question about. Scientists have not proven what causes the temperature increase. And we are still within historic norms for inter-glacial times.
If CO2 causes temperatures to increase, why hasn't it gotten warmer in the past 11 years? CO2 concentrations have increased but temperatures have not.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 7, 2010 at 4:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Keta, Some people believe that life begins at conception. So, people aren't against stem cell research, they are against creating life and then destroying it to harvest the stem cells. That's just following their religious beliefs that's not anti-science.
Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on February 7, 2010 at 6:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Noesis; It is a scientific fact that life begins at conception, not just a religious belief. Embryonic stem cell research is morally wrong because you are killing a living human being for medical research (shade of the Nazis) and the interesting part of this equation is, Embryonic stem cell research has not been proven to produce any more substantial results than Adult stem cell research which is morally acceptable because you are not killing anyone. Any religion that ignores scientific fact is bordering on superstition (shades of Galileo). Scientific fact will not contradict true religion.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mickakers, I agree with your statement that life begins at conception, I was just pointing out to Keta that the people who are against stem cell research do so because of religous/moral beliefs not, because they are anti-science.
Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 6:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I respect everyone's opinion here. There are varying definitions of "life" if you consider that everything is made up of tiny, fast moving particles, then you can argue that everything is ALIVE. My definition of life differs from you mick, and I understand your point. I respect your comments on here, and admire that you stand so firmly in your beliefs, yet are humble enough to admit you don't have all the answers.
Stem cell research, however, has the possibilities of saving countless lives. I can't attest to its viability right now, but would find us somehow default in not pursuing cures for cancer, Alzheimers, etc.
Although my stance will draw controversy, I believe life begins when a fetus can sustain life on its own, versus being parasitical. Most scientists believe this to be at about 8 weeks, when the fetus develops its own brain activity, separate from the mothers'.
This draws the question, when is it ok to pull the plug on someone in your family? They are technically still alive, but what will the quality of that life be? Just something to think about. I don't intend to change minds, just broaden the understanding of the other side.
Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on February 8, 2010 at 6:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jonferguson; I appreciated the way you broadened the issue. Life, from conception to death is integral. If we become lax in our moral principles at birth it becomes easier to become lax in our principles during life and at the time of death, in other words, it becomes more easier to pull the plug prematurely for our own selfish agenda and convenience. I am completely in favor and highly endorse Adult Stem Cell Research for "cures for cancer, Alzheimers, etc.". There is no scientific proof that Embryonic Stem Cell Research produces any better results. Food for thought, the end does not necessarily justify the means. Thanks jon for your input but most of all for your searching. I hope the TRUTH is what we all seek.
Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 10, 2010 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm reposting a comment I made on another string here because I feel it speaks directly to the point of this article.
Doesn't just about everyone "mortgage" their future? We take out mortgage loans, invest in stocks and bonds, and CD's, Go to college and spend tuition money to plan for a better life. Seems to me, when we are broke, jobless, losing our homes, and hoping to better ourselves as a nation, we probably do need to invest in a new direction. Just as baby boomers have gone back to school to get a piece of the hi-tech pie, so should our nation. We HAVE to move forward again, and yes, doing so is going to cost money....just like it would you or me personally.
America has to start thinking big. Penny ante solutions have gotten us no where. We are quagmired in the status quo. Making steel isn't the future. Burning fossil fuels isn't the future. Building monopolized industries isn't the future. Creating an education program to ensure no child is left behind, yet not funding or regulating the program is not the future. The future lies in what isn't here yet. What we haven't had the guts to explore. The future lies in renewable energy, resources, materials, and fuel. Its what the world wants. Since when did American ingenuity thumb its nose at what the populations demand called for? If we want to REALLY think capitalistically, we need to look at those products and services that will move us ahead in a global market, not stalemate in the ideals of yesteryear. That ship has sailed.
Just as this area boomed from the pig iron industry, it has also declined by the short-sightedness of those determined to make old industry timeless.
Can anyone honestly argue that we shouldn't be moving forward in our quest for things such as energy independence, technology, educational supremacy, and global market reconciliation?
Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on February 10, 2010 at 7:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jonferguson; I concur.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)