EIN News says, "After Clashes in Iran, Protests in Yemen and Bahrain A day after riot police in Iran beat demonstrators and fired tear gas to contain the most significant street protests since the end of the 2009 uprising there, confrontation with the authorities continued to unfold in the region on Tuesday as protesters clashed with security forces in Bahrain and Yemen. (nytimes.com)".
With respect to these various uprisings, let's not concentrate only on the apparent opportunity for the extension of freedom, which is of significant importance to Americans. We must also look at whether each of these uprisings is a gain in Muslim power. Collective increase in Muslim power in the Arabic states will lead to attacks on Israel, with the associated problem of what the US will do to support its ally.
The ultimate objective of Islam and its Muslim followers is to convert all people, including Jews and Christians, to Islam or to kill them. This is the potential jihad, which we would like to avoid by maintaining Muslims in a position of minimal political power, whereby we have to deal only with the occasional terrorists. The alternative is to prepare ourselves for extensive bloodshed
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Sunday, February 13, 2011
American Chemical Society Political Policy
I recently received a form letter from Kathryn Verona, American Chemical Society Office of Public Affairs. She urged that I write to my federal legislators urging them not to make significant cuts to federal agencies that support basic research and science education when considering the FY 2011 Continuing Resolution that is now pending before Congress.
I replied to Kathryn as follows:
"I routinely contact my federal legislators, but I will not follow your suggestion.
I do not agree with the policies of the ACS, as indicated by your message.
The ACS may believe that it is acting as a non-political organization, but in fact it is very political. It is only acting as a nonpartisan organization. Present ACS policy is obviously the support of large, socialistic government, which will use taxpayer funds for various programs involving science, and "chemistry" in particular.
This is not the precept on which our nation was founded. We have continually become more socialistically minded in the last 60 years. This has resulted in considerable damage to our personal freedoms and our projected economy.
I particularly abhor the use of grants from various federal agencies in order to support so-called "scientific research". While some of that grant money is spent on legitimate scientific endeavors, much of it is ensconced in a socialistic capsule. Particularly objectionable are grants involving climatology, for which the federal grantee expects to receive scientific data, no matter how questionable, which will support the Obama Administration's view that carbon dioxide is an atmospheric poison and must be controlled. The basis of this is not the question of whether carbon dioxide is a poison, the question really is to find any smidgen of data which could possibly be used to support a new taxation base.
The ACS should get out of the business of promoting the obtaining of federal funds to increase the total revenue for research at universities. University professors should obtain funding from university revenues from student tuitions, private grants from individuals and trust organizations, and industry. Any money obtained from the federal government is tainted politically and thereby prostituted.
The ACS policy should be primarily to report on news-worthy situations, such as what is happening in government and private research, what industrial developments are taking place, changes in patent policy, limitations on exports and imports imposed by trade barriers, status of chemical employment including unemployment and salaries, college and university educational programs, book reports written by scientists, etc.. None of these activities should show a partiality or promotion, except as through quotations from individuals. In short, the ACS should be promoting only the advance of chemistry and chemistry related projects as indicated by the DuPont slogan of a "better life through chemistry"."
I replied to Kathryn as follows:
"I routinely contact my federal legislators, but I will not follow your suggestion.
I do not agree with the policies of the ACS, as indicated by your message.
The ACS may believe that it is acting as a non-political organization, but in fact it is very political. It is only acting as a nonpartisan organization. Present ACS policy is obviously the support of large, socialistic government, which will use taxpayer funds for various programs involving science, and "chemistry" in particular.
This is not the precept on which our nation was founded. We have continually become more socialistically minded in the last 60 years. This has resulted in considerable damage to our personal freedoms and our projected economy.
I particularly abhor the use of grants from various federal agencies in order to support so-called "scientific research". While some of that grant money is spent on legitimate scientific endeavors, much of it is ensconced in a socialistic capsule. Particularly objectionable are grants involving climatology, for which the federal grantee expects to receive scientific data, no matter how questionable, which will support the Obama Administration's view that carbon dioxide is an atmospheric poison and must be controlled. The basis of this is not the question of whether carbon dioxide is a poison, the question really is to find any smidgen of data which could possibly be used to support a new taxation base.
The ACS should get out of the business of promoting the obtaining of federal funds to increase the total revenue for research at universities. University professors should obtain funding from university revenues from student tuitions, private grants from individuals and trust organizations, and industry. Any money obtained from the federal government is tainted politically and thereby prostituted.
The ACS policy should be primarily to report on news-worthy situations, such as what is happening in government and private research, what industrial developments are taking place, changes in patent policy, limitations on exports and imports imposed by trade barriers, status of chemical employment including unemployment and salaries, college and university educational programs, book reports written by scientists, etc.. None of these activities should show a partiality or promotion, except as through quotations from individuals. In short, the ACS should be promoting only the advance of chemistry and chemistry related projects as indicated by the DuPont slogan of a "better life through chemistry"."
Friday, February 11, 2011
Iranian Muslims Support Egyptian Revolution
EIN News says, "Iran Marks Revolution, Puts Pressure on Opposition Hundreds of thousands turned out to mark the 32nd anniversary of Iran's Islamic Revolution in a rally the clerical establishment billed as a chance to show solidarity with "Islamic" protesters in Egypt. (reuters.com)".
This just-discovered announcement strongly supports what I said in a blog 10 minutes ago. I repeat the blog here:
"There is joy in the streets of Egypt. Foreign news reporters have subscribed to the joy of the celebration. Dictator Mubarak has resigned and the people will gain economic and personal freedom. President Obama and his Administration are also ecstatic with the successful revolution. It is all good? No. Most of it is bad.
Let's put the emotions aside for a moment and look at some facts. While President Obama was a dictator allowing limited personal and economic powers to the Egyptian people, he was a bulwark against Islam in the Middle East. His resignation has raised the power of Islam to a considerably higher level. The military government is only temporary and Muslims will soon start to demonstrate their newfound power. And power it is, with control of the Suez Canal, through which a good portion of the world's good passes in transportation.
I suggest that when we hear about or talk about the Muslim Brotherhood, we forget the brotherhood part. They are Muslims pure and simple. The Muslim doctrine is to convert all people to Islam and to kill those who do not conform. Many will say that modern Muslims do not believe that. Not on your life. The culture is imbued, just as Christian culture is imbued with many people in the US. They will fight to the death for their religion. Many in the US do not follow Christian doctrine, even though they are Christians. This is also true with Muslims, but the majority of Muslims are still the personal enemies of Christians. It is highly likely there will be a religious war between Muslims and Christians, as there has been in the past. Muslims have previously talked about the jihad. It is now more imminent with the departure of Mubarak and the rising control of Muslims in Egypt.
I have never supported nation building and have always been opposed to the war in Iraq and now Afghanistan. If we think that we have rebuilt Egypt in a new Democratic image we have another thought coming. Egypt will now be another enemy to the US in the Middle East. The Shah of Iran also kept Islam at bay. With his disposal, we developed in Iran a new Islamic enemy. The Egyptian Revolution will follow the same course.
The sad part about it is that we have lost thousands of brave US military men and women in our Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. With several days of uprising in Egypt, our sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan has become a completely wasteful experience. However even with the thousands that have been lost in Iraq/Afghanistan, this will pale in comparison with a bloody jihad.
Another sad part is that US citizens have elected President Obama, who has no idea of American culture since he was not raised in the US. He is also a Muslim sympathizer, which is why he and his Administration are ecstatic with the Mubarak overthrow. I wonder how he is going to feel when millions of US citizens are slaughtered by Muslims."
This just-discovered announcement strongly supports what I said in a blog 10 minutes ago. I repeat the blog here:
"There is joy in the streets of Egypt. Foreign news reporters have subscribed to the joy of the celebration. Dictator Mubarak has resigned and the people will gain economic and personal freedom. President Obama and his Administration are also ecstatic with the successful revolution. It is all good? No. Most of it is bad.
Let's put the emotions aside for a moment and look at some facts. While President Obama was a dictator allowing limited personal and economic powers to the Egyptian people, he was a bulwark against Islam in the Middle East. His resignation has raised the power of Islam to a considerably higher level. The military government is only temporary and Muslims will soon start to demonstrate their newfound power. And power it is, with control of the Suez Canal, through which a good portion of the world's good passes in transportation.
I suggest that when we hear about or talk about the Muslim Brotherhood, we forget the brotherhood part. They are Muslims pure and simple. The Muslim doctrine is to convert all people to Islam and to kill those who do not conform. Many will say that modern Muslims do not believe that. Not on your life. The culture is imbued, just as Christian culture is imbued with many people in the US. They will fight to the death for their religion. Many in the US do not follow Christian doctrine, even though they are Christians. This is also true with Muslims, but the majority of Muslims are still the personal enemies of Christians. It is highly likely there will be a religious war between Muslims and Christians, as there has been in the past. Muslims have previously talked about the jihad. It is now more imminent with the departure of Mubarak and the rising control of Muslims in Egypt.
I have never supported nation building and have always been opposed to the war in Iraq and now Afghanistan. If we think that we have rebuilt Egypt in a new Democratic image we have another thought coming. Egypt will now be another enemy to the US in the Middle East. The Shah of Iran also kept Islam at bay. With his disposal, we developed in Iran a new Islamic enemy. The Egyptian Revolution will follow the same course.
The sad part about it is that we have lost thousands of brave US military men and women in our Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. With several days of uprising in Egypt, our sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan has become a completely wasteful experience. However even with the thousands that have been lost in Iraq/Afghanistan, this will pale in comparison with a bloody jihad.
Another sad part is that US citizens have elected President Obama, who has no idea of American culture since he was not raised in the US. He is also a Muslim sympathizer, which is why he and his Administration are ecstatic with the Mubarak overthrow. I wonder how he is going to feel when millions of US citizens are slaughtered by Muslims."
Egypt - Bad News for the US
There is joy in the streets of Egypt. Foreign news reporters have subscribed to the joy of the celebration. Dictator Mubarak has resigned and the people will gain economic and personal freedom. President Obama and his Administration are also ecstatic with the successful revolution. It is all good? No. Most of it is bad.
Let's put the emotions aside for a moment and look at some facts. While President Obama was a dictator allowing limited personal and economic powers to the Egyptian people, he was a bulwark against Islam in the Middle East. His resignation has raised the power of Islam to a considerably higher level. The military government is only temporary and Muslims will soon start to demonstrate their newfound power. And power it is, with control of the Suez Canal, through which a good portion of the world's good passes in transportation.
I suggest that when we hear about or talk about the Muslim Brotherhood, we forget the brotherhood part. They are Muslims pure and simple. The Muslim doctrine is to convert all people to Islam and to kill those who do not conform. Many will say that modern Muslims do not believe that. Not on your life. The culture is imbued, just as Christian culture is imbued with many people in the US. They will fight to the death for their religion. Many in the US do not follow Christian doctrine, even though they are Christians. This is also true with Muslims, but the majority of Muslims are still the personal enemies of Christians. It is highly likely there will be a religious war between Muslims and Christians, as there has been in the past. Muslims have previously talked about the jihad. It is now more imminent with the departure of Mubarak and the rising control of Muslims in Egypt.
I have never supported nation building and have always been opposed to the war in Iraq and now Afghanistan. If we think that we have rebuilt Egypt in a new Democratic image we have another thought coming. Egypt will now be another enemy to the US in the Middle East. The Shah of Iran also kept Islam at bay. With his disposal, we developed in Iran a new Islamic enemy. The Egyptian Revolution will follow the same course.
The sad part about it is that we have lost thousands of brave US military men and women in our Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. With several days of uprising in Egypt, our sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan has become a completely wasteful experience. However even with the thousands that have been lost in Iraq/Afghanistan, this will pale in comparison with a bloody jihad.
Another sad part is that US citizens have elected President Obama, who has no idea of American culture since he was not raised in the US. He is also a Muslim sympathizer, which is why he and his Administration are ecstatic with the Mubarak overthrow. I wonder how he is going to feel when millions of US citizens are slaughtered by Muslims.
Let's put the emotions aside for a moment and look at some facts. While President Obama was a dictator allowing limited personal and economic powers to the Egyptian people, he was a bulwark against Islam in the Middle East. His resignation has raised the power of Islam to a considerably higher level. The military government is only temporary and Muslims will soon start to demonstrate their newfound power. And power it is, with control of the Suez Canal, through which a good portion of the world's good passes in transportation.
I suggest that when we hear about or talk about the Muslim Brotherhood, we forget the brotherhood part. They are Muslims pure and simple. The Muslim doctrine is to convert all people to Islam and to kill those who do not conform. Many will say that modern Muslims do not believe that. Not on your life. The culture is imbued, just as Christian culture is imbued with many people in the US. They will fight to the death for their religion. Many in the US do not follow Christian doctrine, even though they are Christians. This is also true with Muslims, but the majority of Muslims are still the personal enemies of Christians. It is highly likely there will be a religious war between Muslims and Christians, as there has been in the past. Muslims have previously talked about the jihad. It is now more imminent with the departure of Mubarak and the rising control of Muslims in Egypt.
I have never supported nation building and have always been opposed to the war in Iraq and now Afghanistan. If we think that we have rebuilt Egypt in a new Democratic image we have another thought coming. Egypt will now be another enemy to the US in the Middle East. The Shah of Iran also kept Islam at bay. With his disposal, we developed in Iran a new Islamic enemy. The Egyptian Revolution will follow the same course.
The sad part about it is that we have lost thousands of brave US military men and women in our Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. With several days of uprising in Egypt, our sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan has become a completely wasteful experience. However even with the thousands that have been lost in Iraq/Afghanistan, this will pale in comparison with a bloody jihad.
Another sad part is that US citizens have elected President Obama, who has no idea of American culture since he was not raised in the US. He is also a Muslim sympathizer, which is why he and his Administration are ecstatic with the Mubarak overthrow. I wonder how he is going to feel when millions of US citizens are slaughtered by Muslims.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Chemical Related Congressional Outlook for 2011
C&EN has a nice rundown in it's January 17 Issue concerning congressional outlook for 2011 on matters that will affect the chemical industry, academia, government, and taxpayers.
I will ignore the obvious ones covered by TV news, such as health care reform and reducing the budget. I will concentrate on key science and technology issues.
Both the House and Senate will work toward renewing chemical plant security regulations, reforming the patent system, and ensuring drug safety. This is all good, providing so many restrictions are not used as to discourage economic development.
Representative Fred Upton, Darrell Issa, and Doug Lamborn all have a clear desire to investigate and eliminate regulations that have killed jobs, held back American business and hurt workers and their families. Congratulations! Let's see what they can do. Fred Upton wrote Energy Secretary Chu last November criticizing the Administration' stimulus spending and demanding answers to a detailed list of questions about spending of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds. There is no indication of whether he received an answer.
Darrell Issa asked 150 associations to specify regulations that have negatively impacted job growth in their industries and should be examined by his committee. There has been a good response. Let's see what kind of action his committee will take.
Additionally, Upton and Issa have made it clear that their top environmental priority would be challenging EPA's plan to control industrial emissions of carbon dioxide through provisions of the Clean Air Act. Hooray! Let's get the EPA out of politics of the Obama Administration, which in this case is using CO2 as a probable new source of tax revenue. The key point is not to allow the EPA to regulate something which has not been legislated. Upton says EPA's Jackson has her foot firmly on the throat of our economic recovery. Go get her Fred! The Democrats, and especially Barbara Boxer, want to make a fight of it. Let's hope that the general public is adequately informed to the extent that Boxer will lose her seat in her next reelection campaign. She wants to challenge "any legislative effort to threaten the health, safety, or well-being of the people of America". A wonderful platitude but lacking in detail and reality.
Lamborn says he will focus on the Department of Interior and the what he sees is its tardiness in opening federal lands to energy development. Hooray for Lamborn! This will also take it back to Obama and Ken Salazar, who have sacrificed US fossil fuel production in an effort to promote more expensive alternate energy, such as wind and solar.
Jeff Bingaman wants to promote development of renewable energy sources. Let's kill that. We already had too much of it from President Obama and Secretary Chu. Solar and wind energy are too expensive. The cheap and proven way to go is with oil, natural gas, and coal. Utilities are making huge long-term investment decisions on new power plants. Government needs to tell them to avoid renewable energy facilities, such as solar and wind. We must dry up the subsidies for these proven losers.
Pershing, a US government political hack, said that failure of the US to cut greenhouse gas emissions will be noticed internationally. I hope so! I agree with the supposition that lack of action by the US could limit the willingness of other countries to control their own release of greenhouse gases. Great! This would be a major advance for world economics.
Chemical plant security regulations are also being considered. This is a good move. Too many plants are operating with unnecessary storage of dangerous materials. These materials could be generated on-site, as they are necessary for use.
The EPA has been working on a program to screen chemicals for potential hormonal impact on people. We have lots of health problems, which can likely be traced to hormone disruption. EPA should be encouraged to continue with this program, especially since it would take their minds off the political football of climate change. Pesticides should be looked at especially carefully, including those for home use.
The America Competes Act was reauthorized in December. This is not an area in which government should be involved. It's business and business organizations have adequate facilities to handle their own promotion. Ralph Hall says, "the measure continues to be far too expensive, and particularly in light of the new and duplicative programs it creates". "The bill goes beyond the goals and directions of the original America Competes Act, taking us from good solid fundamental research and much too far into the world of commercialization". Amen! If we cannot scuttle the bill, let's at least limit funding to starve it to death. This is another great opportunity to cut the budget and reduce the size of government.
NASA is also on the agenda for review. Its continued existence is controversial, but I believe they have done some good work and should be continued at least in part. However, this should include at least getting them off the kick of global climate change caused by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is likely that they have only included this in condescending to the political agenda of the Obama administration.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative should be scuttled. Any practical advantages for using nanotechnology can easily be handled by private industry. There is some evidence of toxicity problems caused by nanotechnology, but this could be handled by the EPA and OSHA.
I will ignore the obvious ones covered by TV news, such as health care reform and reducing the budget. I will concentrate on key science and technology issues.
Both the House and Senate will work toward renewing chemical plant security regulations, reforming the patent system, and ensuring drug safety. This is all good, providing so many restrictions are not used as to discourage economic development.
Representative Fred Upton, Darrell Issa, and Doug Lamborn all have a clear desire to investigate and eliminate regulations that have killed jobs, held back American business and hurt workers and their families. Congratulations! Let's see what they can do. Fred Upton wrote Energy Secretary Chu last November criticizing the Administration' stimulus spending and demanding answers to a detailed list of questions about spending of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds. There is no indication of whether he received an answer.
Darrell Issa asked 150 associations to specify regulations that have negatively impacted job growth in their industries and should be examined by his committee. There has been a good response. Let's see what kind of action his committee will take.
Additionally, Upton and Issa have made it clear that their top environmental priority would be challenging EPA's plan to control industrial emissions of carbon dioxide through provisions of the Clean Air Act. Hooray! Let's get the EPA out of politics of the Obama Administration, which in this case is using CO2 as a probable new source of tax revenue. The key point is not to allow the EPA to regulate something which has not been legislated. Upton says EPA's Jackson has her foot firmly on the throat of our economic recovery. Go get her Fred! The Democrats, and especially Barbara Boxer, want to make a fight of it. Let's hope that the general public is adequately informed to the extent that Boxer will lose her seat in her next reelection campaign. She wants to challenge "any legislative effort to threaten the health, safety, or well-being of the people of America". A wonderful platitude but lacking in detail and reality.
Lamborn says he will focus on the Department of Interior and the what he sees is its tardiness in opening federal lands to energy development. Hooray for Lamborn! This will also take it back to Obama and Ken Salazar, who have sacrificed US fossil fuel production in an effort to promote more expensive alternate energy, such as wind and solar.
Jeff Bingaman wants to promote development of renewable energy sources. Let's kill that. We already had too much of it from President Obama and Secretary Chu. Solar and wind energy are too expensive. The cheap and proven way to go is with oil, natural gas, and coal. Utilities are making huge long-term investment decisions on new power plants. Government needs to tell them to avoid renewable energy facilities, such as solar and wind. We must dry up the subsidies for these proven losers.
Pershing, a US government political hack, said that failure of the US to cut greenhouse gas emissions will be noticed internationally. I hope so! I agree with the supposition that lack of action by the US could limit the willingness of other countries to control their own release of greenhouse gases. Great! This would be a major advance for world economics.
Chemical plant security regulations are also being considered. This is a good move. Too many plants are operating with unnecessary storage of dangerous materials. These materials could be generated on-site, as they are necessary for use.
The EPA has been working on a program to screen chemicals for potential hormonal impact on people. We have lots of health problems, which can likely be traced to hormone disruption. EPA should be encouraged to continue with this program, especially since it would take their minds off the political football of climate change. Pesticides should be looked at especially carefully, including those for home use.
The America Competes Act was reauthorized in December. This is not an area in which government should be involved. It's business and business organizations have adequate facilities to handle their own promotion. Ralph Hall says, "the measure continues to be far too expensive, and particularly in light of the new and duplicative programs it creates". "The bill goes beyond the goals and directions of the original America Competes Act, taking us from good solid fundamental research and much too far into the world of commercialization". Amen! If we cannot scuttle the bill, let's at least limit funding to starve it to death. This is another great opportunity to cut the budget and reduce the size of government.
NASA is also on the agenda for review. Its continued existence is controversial, but I believe they have done some good work and should be continued at least in part. However, this should include at least getting them off the kick of global climate change caused by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is likely that they have only included this in condescending to the political agenda of the Obama administration.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative should be scuttled. Any practical advantages for using nanotechnology can easily be handled by private industry. There is some evidence of toxicity problems caused by nanotechnology, but this could be handled by the EPA and OSHA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
