EIN News says, "China Executes 3 Filipinos Despite Manila's Appeals for Clemency
China executed three Filipinos who were convicted of drug smuggling despite last-minute appeals for clemency and political concessions by Philippine leaders, officials said. (theglobeandmail.com)".
Hooray for China! We could use some real law enforcement in the US.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Exorbitant Federal Budget
The February 28 issue of C&E News covers the Food and Drug Administrations Budget Boost, and the March 21 issue covers the National Science Foundations Budget Boost.
For the FDA, Obama is requesting a 29% increase over the previous budget, in these times of excessive government and budget deficits. Reasons given are globalization of the food and drug supply, regulating tobacco products, implementing a food safety bill, creating a pathway for generic versions of biologic drugs, and enhancing regulatory science. A closer look at what all of these entail shows a $324 million increase for food safety, $70 million for new tools to respond to emerging diseases, $124 million for generic versions of biologic drugs, $49 million for general regulatory, and $455 million for tobacco related activities.
I have the impression that my food supply is safe enough. I don't see what another $324 million would do except to increase federal hirings and buy more equipment.
I was under the impression that the Center for Disease Control handles communicable diseases. Why do I need FDA involvement for $70 million?
Why would the federal government want to spend $124 million on generic versions of biological drugs? That seems to already be handled by the pharmaceutical companies. Is the $124 million a matter of controls because we don't think the pharmaceutical companies are doing the right thing and we need to have policemen in their operations?
What is the $49 million for general regulatory? The FDA has already been regulating. Haven't we had enough regulating? Are there a lot problems out there that I haven't even thought about? If so, what are they?
Why almost 1/2 $1 billion to be spent on tobacco. We already know about tobacco for all practical purposes. Everybody now knows that smoking tobacco increases the likelihood that they will have lung cancer or emphysema. We also know that it contains nicotine, which is a physiologically addictive chemical. Chewing tobacco increases prevalence for mouth cancers. I don't see what else we need to know that would justify spending a nickel on tobacco.
Bottom line: Obama and the Socialists are still in a big spending mode. It is up to the House to kill the psychology.
Going on to the NSF budget, Obama has requested $7.8 billion, a 13% increase over the previous budget. The NSF director says that in these challenging fiscal times this budget shows the confidence that the president is placing in NSF. What does that mean? If these are challenging fiscal times, why should we be increasing the budget? Is it implied that that the NSF, through an increased budget, is going to take us out of hard times? Only Socialists think that way and it has been proven incorrect many times.
The NSF director went on to say that through support of fundamental research in all disciplinary areas, jobs are generated, the economy grows and adds immeasurably to the global store of knowledge and reeducating our workforce. A lot of hooey. If that's true, why are we in the spot that we're in now after having spent in previous years $6-$7 billion per year?
Let's look at a little of the breakdown. Several programs are tackling multidisciplinary societal problems, to include science engineering and education for sustainability, research at the interface of biological, mathematical and physical sciences, science and engineering beyond Moore's Law and generally increases in the Chemistry Division. Look at the words and consider what they mean in real life. It's all pie in the sky based upon sophisticated wording to confuse the public into thinking that these are magical silver bullets that will correct all our problems.
Take "sustainability", as an example. We already know about sustainability. The sun shines and we have no indication that it will ever stop shining. That's sustainability. The sunshine generates plants, and we have no indication that that will ever stop. That's also sustainability. Coal deposits are well known and are being mined. We can perceive that coal availability will sometime come to an end. That's non-sustainability. What then are we going to study with respect to sustainability? It's applicable to everything we do, and a little common sense on every aspect of its involvement easily leads to the conclusion that we don't need egg heads to decide whether something is sustainable or not.
$63 Million will be spent on Science, Engineering & Education for Sustainability. I need to know how it will be spent. More government jobs to do something that doesn't need doing by government, since it would be better done by private industry? It has been said that chemistry is the key to any advances that will be made in sustainability. I'm a chemist, and I generally agree with that. I also know that private industry is strongly interested in sustainability to keep their businesses running. We don't need government involved in this.
The NSF director says any cuts in the budget will be devastating. She's the director. How can she think otherwise? But that doesn't make it right. Beer drinkers would also like a free supply of beer.
One piece of good news is that the NSF appears to be cutting back on its grants to third-party investigators. I have said before that this is an area for fraud and deception and should be eliminated anyhow.
For the FDA, Obama is requesting a 29% increase over the previous budget, in these times of excessive government and budget deficits. Reasons given are globalization of the food and drug supply, regulating tobacco products, implementing a food safety bill, creating a pathway for generic versions of biologic drugs, and enhancing regulatory science. A closer look at what all of these entail shows a $324 million increase for food safety, $70 million for new tools to respond to emerging diseases, $124 million for generic versions of biologic drugs, $49 million for general regulatory, and $455 million for tobacco related activities.
I have the impression that my food supply is safe enough. I don't see what another $324 million would do except to increase federal hirings and buy more equipment.
I was under the impression that the Center for Disease Control handles communicable diseases. Why do I need FDA involvement for $70 million?
Why would the federal government want to spend $124 million on generic versions of biological drugs? That seems to already be handled by the pharmaceutical companies. Is the $124 million a matter of controls because we don't think the pharmaceutical companies are doing the right thing and we need to have policemen in their operations?
What is the $49 million for general regulatory? The FDA has already been regulating. Haven't we had enough regulating? Are there a lot problems out there that I haven't even thought about? If so, what are they?
Why almost 1/2 $1 billion to be spent on tobacco. We already know about tobacco for all practical purposes. Everybody now knows that smoking tobacco increases the likelihood that they will have lung cancer or emphysema. We also know that it contains nicotine, which is a physiologically addictive chemical. Chewing tobacco increases prevalence for mouth cancers. I don't see what else we need to know that would justify spending a nickel on tobacco.
Bottom line: Obama and the Socialists are still in a big spending mode. It is up to the House to kill the psychology.
Going on to the NSF budget, Obama has requested $7.8 billion, a 13% increase over the previous budget. The NSF director says that in these challenging fiscal times this budget shows the confidence that the president is placing in NSF. What does that mean? If these are challenging fiscal times, why should we be increasing the budget? Is it implied that that the NSF, through an increased budget, is going to take us out of hard times? Only Socialists think that way and it has been proven incorrect many times.
The NSF director went on to say that through support of fundamental research in all disciplinary areas, jobs are generated, the economy grows and adds immeasurably to the global store of knowledge and reeducating our workforce. A lot of hooey. If that's true, why are we in the spot that we're in now after having spent in previous years $6-$7 billion per year?
Let's look at a little of the breakdown. Several programs are tackling multidisciplinary societal problems, to include science engineering and education for sustainability, research at the interface of biological, mathematical and physical sciences, science and engineering beyond Moore's Law and generally increases in the Chemistry Division. Look at the words and consider what they mean in real life. It's all pie in the sky based upon sophisticated wording to confuse the public into thinking that these are magical silver bullets that will correct all our problems.
Take "sustainability", as an example. We already know about sustainability. The sun shines and we have no indication that it will ever stop shining. That's sustainability. The sunshine generates plants, and we have no indication that that will ever stop. That's also sustainability. Coal deposits are well known and are being mined. We can perceive that coal availability will sometime come to an end. That's non-sustainability. What then are we going to study with respect to sustainability? It's applicable to everything we do, and a little common sense on every aspect of its involvement easily leads to the conclusion that we don't need egg heads to decide whether something is sustainable or not.
$63 Million will be spent on Science, Engineering & Education for Sustainability. I need to know how it will be spent. More government jobs to do something that doesn't need doing by government, since it would be better done by private industry? It has been said that chemistry is the key to any advances that will be made in sustainability. I'm a chemist, and I generally agree with that. I also know that private industry is strongly interested in sustainability to keep their businesses running. We don't need government involved in this.
The NSF director says any cuts in the budget will be devastating. She's the director. How can she think otherwise? But that doesn't make it right. Beer drinkers would also like a free supply of beer.
One piece of good news is that the NSF appears to be cutting back on its grants to third-party investigators. I have said before that this is an area for fraud and deception and should be eliminated anyhow.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Regulating Perchlorate in Drinking Water
Perchlorate has been found to be a drinking water contaminant. It is believed that the pollution sources are from rocket fuels and fire works, as well as occurring naturally in some areas. It is suspected to interfere with thyroid function. The EPA has decided to set a standard for its content in drinking water. The C&E News article of February 7 did not mention what that standard might be, but California has set a limit of no more than 6 mcg per liter. In a separate EPA report, an average of 4 mcg per liter was reported.
The Bush administration had previously decided not to regulate it, but this is being reevaluated by the present administration. The EPA director said that the consideration is being based upon extensive review of the best available science and health needs for the American people.
However, I thought I'd like to know something about the the toxicity of perchlorate with respect to thyroid metabolism, for which it is accused.
Joseph C. Siglin, et al. performed a, "A 90-Day Drinking Water Toxicity Study in Rats of the Environmental Contaminant Ammonium Perchlorate". They found a thyroid change at 10 mg per kilo per day and no change at 1 mg per kilo per day. For convenience, we can eliminate the ammonium contribution to the molecule and just say there was no change at 1 mg per kilo per day for perchlorate.
An average person weighs about 70 kg. Children drinking tap water may weigh as little as 20 kg. Let's take the low children weight. The no-affect level for child would be 20 mg per day. That's 20,000 mcg per day. At 4 mcg per liter, a child drinking 5000 L of water in a day would have no thyroid effect but would certainly be drowned.
In essence, I am not against regulating perchlorate in drinking water, if it is necessary, nor am I against regulating about 16 other chemicals, providing we can show that there is toxicity at the levels for which they currently exist in drinking water. However, my quick calculations above seem to indicate it is even ridiculous to consider it. We also must remember that analytical techniques have developed significantly in the last 50 years, so that we can go down to a gnat's eyelash. However the mere fact that we can find it does not mean that it is significant
This all boils down to the usual consideration of whether regulation is necessary. Let's remember that some of the major problems in employment is the resistance of employers to hire based upon numerous regulations of the federal government.
The Bush administration had previously decided not to regulate it, but this is being reevaluated by the present administration. The EPA director said that the consideration is being based upon extensive review of the best available science and health needs for the American people.
However, I thought I'd like to know something about the the toxicity of perchlorate with respect to thyroid metabolism, for which it is accused.
Joseph C. Siglin, et al. performed a, "A 90-Day Drinking Water Toxicity Study in Rats of the Environmental Contaminant Ammonium Perchlorate". They found a thyroid change at 10 mg per kilo per day and no change at 1 mg per kilo per day. For convenience, we can eliminate the ammonium contribution to the molecule and just say there was no change at 1 mg per kilo per day for perchlorate.
An average person weighs about 70 kg. Children drinking tap water may weigh as little as 20 kg. Let's take the low children weight. The no-affect level for child would be 20 mg per day. That's 20,000 mcg per day. At 4 mcg per liter, a child drinking 5000 L of water in a day would have no thyroid effect but would certainly be drowned.
In essence, I am not against regulating perchlorate in drinking water, if it is necessary, nor am I against regulating about 16 other chemicals, providing we can show that there is toxicity at the levels for which they currently exist in drinking water. However, my quick calculations above seem to indicate it is even ridiculous to consider it. We also must remember that analytical techniques have developed significantly in the last 50 years, so that we can go down to a gnat's eyelash. However the mere fact that we can find it does not mean that it is significant
This all boils down to the usual consideration of whether regulation is necessary. Let's remember that some of the major problems in employment is the resistance of employers to hire based upon numerous regulations of the federal government.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Scientific Integrity in the Federal Government
This writing starts with a publication in the January 10 issue of C&E News. It is entitled, "Federal Blueprint for Scientific integrity".
It is said that Congress has been following the issue of scientific integrity at federal agencies for many years.
In March of 2009, Pres. Barack Obama pledged in his address to executive departments and agencies that government officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions. He was referring to this in regard to forming public policy.
In December of 2010, the Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP) issued the long-awaited memorandum to federal departments designed to ensure scientific integrity and the government. The memorandum does not seem to cover the fact that all various agencies of the federal government work for the president, whose ideological persuasions are well-known to the leaders of those federal agencies and the other employees. Therefore, to hold their jobs, they generally tend to show bias in scientific investigations within their departments. in addition, they tend to use subterfuge in grants to third-party investigators, who also know that the handwriting is on the wall to come up with answers which are consistent with the ideologies of the president, in order to have their grants continued
In the February 7 issue of C&E News, it is reported that the Department of interior became the first department to issue a new policy for scientific integrity based on the previous OSTP memorandum. Interior Sec. Ken Salazar said in a statement that the policy sets forth clear expectations for all employees - political and career - to uphold the principles of scientific integrity and establishes a process for an impartial review of alleged breaching of those principles. This is, again, a motherhood statement very similar to Pres. Obama's original speech. Among the specifics, is the statement that government scientists may speak freely to the news media and public in areas related to their work and have protection for whistleblowers.
I don't know what else the Salazar Policy. While there is indication of protection for whistleblowers, it certainly will not correct my major concern that there will always be bias toward what the boss thinks in order to protect one's job
The only solution to this problem is to change the fundamental ideologies by replacing those in power, such as Ken Salazar and Pres. Obama, with new people having a more reasonable ideology for the progress of the United States rather than a redistribution of wealth on a worldwide basis.
Let's hope we can achieve this in the forthcoming 2012 election.
It is said that Congress has been following the issue of scientific integrity at federal agencies for many years.
In March of 2009, Pres. Barack Obama pledged in his address to executive departments and agencies that government officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions. He was referring to this in regard to forming public policy.
In December of 2010, the Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP) issued the long-awaited memorandum to federal departments designed to ensure scientific integrity and the government. The memorandum does not seem to cover the fact that all various agencies of the federal government work for the president, whose ideological persuasions are well-known to the leaders of those federal agencies and the other employees. Therefore, to hold their jobs, they generally tend to show bias in scientific investigations within their departments. in addition, they tend to use subterfuge in grants to third-party investigators, who also know that the handwriting is on the wall to come up with answers which are consistent with the ideologies of the president, in order to have their grants continued
In the February 7 issue of C&E News, it is reported that the Department of interior became the first department to issue a new policy for scientific integrity based on the previous OSTP memorandum. Interior Sec. Ken Salazar said in a statement that the policy sets forth clear expectations for all employees - political and career - to uphold the principles of scientific integrity and establishes a process for an impartial review of alleged breaching of those principles. This is, again, a motherhood statement very similar to Pres. Obama's original speech. Among the specifics, is the statement that government scientists may speak freely to the news media and public in areas related to their work and have protection for whistleblowers.
I don't know what else the Salazar Policy. While there is indication of protection for whistleblowers, it certainly will not correct my major concern that there will always be bias toward what the boss thinks in order to protect one's job
The only solution to this problem is to change the fundamental ideologies by replacing those in power, such as Ken Salazar and Pres. Obama, with new people having a more reasonable ideology for the progress of the United States rather than a redistribution of wealth on a worldwide basis.
Let's hope we can achieve this in the forthcoming 2012 election.
Monday, March 21, 2011
More Unnecessary Foreign Programs
The March 14 issue of C&E News has an article entitled, "Strengthening Science Abroad".
The article says that US federal agencies are becoming increasingly engaged with foreign countries on subjects involving global health, science diplomacy, and climate change.
The National Institutes of Health has several programs relating to global health. The US taxpayers have been supporting this program for some years by training 4000 scientists from low income countries. In four years, 35 grants were awarded under this program. It did not say what it cost the American taxpayer
The State Department has a Science Envoy Program to bolster research collaboration and innovation with scientists in other countries, presumably all at US taxpayer expense. The State Department sent three big shot scientists to foreign countries in the first wave of "envoys". Why do we need the federal government on this? I would leave it up to the universities and private industry, which have a direct interest in such operation.
The US National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration has a global development policy which includes global climate change, food security, and health. If the National Institutes of Health are already handling global health, why do we need involvement by Oceanic? What also is this program on "climate change"? Is this another effort on the part of the Administration and various departments to develop a worldwide interest in condemning carbon dioxide as a prelude to using it for additional tax revenue?
All of the above sounds good from a humanitarian point of view. The average American is generous in helping people who need help. However, the age-old problem of helping people and having them become dependent is always with us. We have been helping foreigners for years. They need to help themselves, which automatically excludes our federal government from most involvements. We have a real budget problem in government operations. Let's start significantly reducing some of these giveaway programs.
The article says that US federal agencies are becoming increasingly engaged with foreign countries on subjects involving global health, science diplomacy, and climate change.
The National Institutes of Health has several programs relating to global health. The US taxpayers have been supporting this program for some years by training 4000 scientists from low income countries. In four years, 35 grants were awarded under this program. It did not say what it cost the American taxpayer
The State Department has a Science Envoy Program to bolster research collaboration and innovation with scientists in other countries, presumably all at US taxpayer expense. The State Department sent three big shot scientists to foreign countries in the first wave of "envoys". Why do we need the federal government on this? I would leave it up to the universities and private industry, which have a direct interest in such operation.
The US National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration has a global development policy which includes global climate change, food security, and health. If the National Institutes of Health are already handling global health, why do we need involvement by Oceanic? What also is this program on "climate change"? Is this another effort on the part of the Administration and various departments to develop a worldwide interest in condemning carbon dioxide as a prelude to using it for additional tax revenue?
All of the above sounds good from a humanitarian point of view. The average American is generous in helping people who need help. However, the age-old problem of helping people and having them become dependent is always with us. We have been helping foreigners for years. They need to help themselves, which automatically excludes our federal government from most involvements. We have a real budget problem in government operations. Let's start significantly reducing some of these giveaway programs.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
More Unnecessary Research by Government
The March 14th issue of C&E News contained an article entitled, "Oil Spill's Air Effects Probed". The article discusses research flights conducted by the Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration's plane carrying environmental instrumentation to measure methane and other hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide, 03, nitrogen oxides and other species.
It is not stated how much this operation cost, but I consider it silly research in these times of budget deficiencies and requirements to cut expenditures.
Crude oil is essentially a mixture of light hydrocarbons and heavy hydrocarbons. The total mixture is lighter than water and when an amount is released from below the surface, it remains cohesive and rises to the surface as a pool, where the lighter components evaporate into the atmosphere. This process continues until all of the light components are gone and the concentration decreases in time, as the heavier hydrocarbons remain. Those light hydrocarbons that dissipate into the atmosphere are dispersed very easily by wind currents and become widespread low concentration in the atmosphere. Therefore, the measurement of hydrocarbon concentration in the air above an oil spill at a specific time is not environmentally important, because it is not long-lasting.
Since this is information which we previously knew, it was unnecessary to conduct additional expensive research.
It is not stated how much this operation cost, but I consider it silly research in these times of budget deficiencies and requirements to cut expenditures.
Crude oil is essentially a mixture of light hydrocarbons and heavy hydrocarbons. The total mixture is lighter than water and when an amount is released from below the surface, it remains cohesive and rises to the surface as a pool, where the lighter components evaporate into the atmosphere. This process continues until all of the light components are gone and the concentration decreases in time, as the heavier hydrocarbons remain. Those light hydrocarbons that dissipate into the atmosphere are dispersed very easily by wind currents and become widespread low concentration in the atmosphere. Therefore, the measurement of hydrocarbon concentration in the air above an oil spill at a specific time is not environmentally important, because it is not long-lasting.
Since this is information which we previously knew, it was unnecessary to conduct additional expensive research.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Dishonesty in Grants
I recently saw the movie Fat Head. It is an interesting documentation on diet, but it includes some comments on grants.
Grants are the payments of funds generally to establish a program of research or investigation.
In Fat Head, two types of grants are mentioned. One is an advance of funds from a private or public company, and the second is an advance of funds from a Federal government department.
The recipients of those funds are usually academicians associated with various universities. Since the grants are on an annual basis, the recipients usually recognize that in order to receive additional grants for subsequent years, they must come up with results which are consistent with the ideology or plan of the grantor.
An example of a private industry grant, might be one from a pharmaceutical company which is asking for research on the safety of a medicinal material. It is obvious to the grant receiver that the pharmaceutical company wishes to show safety in use of the material and the investigator must come up with a good safety report in order to receive subsequent grants. In fact, this compromises the scientific integrity of the grant receiver.
In the case of a federal department as a grantor, an example might be the Department of Energy funding an investigation on climate change caused by carbon dioxide. The grantee, fully knowing the department's position on CO2 and climate change, is then encouraged to find data which will support the departments position. Again, this compromises the scientific integrity of the grantee.
This is not to say that all grants are bad, but most of them are. It is difficult to find a grant which is completely clear of political implications.
I don't have any specific suggestions on how grants might be controlled in order to maintain scientific integrity. One way might be to eliminate government grants completely. This would be consistent with present efforts to control government expenditures and reduce the size and power of government. Government has its own laboratories, which can conduct research on about any subject. Government laboratories can also manipulate data, but results would be interpreted by the news media and the general public as more questionable than if the research had been performed in a third-party academic institution.
Grants are the payments of funds generally to establish a program of research or investigation.
In Fat Head, two types of grants are mentioned. One is an advance of funds from a private or public company, and the second is an advance of funds from a Federal government department.
The recipients of those funds are usually academicians associated with various universities. Since the grants are on an annual basis, the recipients usually recognize that in order to receive additional grants for subsequent years, they must come up with results which are consistent with the ideology or plan of the grantor.
An example of a private industry grant, might be one from a pharmaceutical company which is asking for research on the safety of a medicinal material. It is obvious to the grant receiver that the pharmaceutical company wishes to show safety in use of the material and the investigator must come up with a good safety report in order to receive subsequent grants. In fact, this compromises the scientific integrity of the grant receiver.
In the case of a federal department as a grantor, an example might be the Department of Energy funding an investigation on climate change caused by carbon dioxide. The grantee, fully knowing the department's position on CO2 and climate change, is then encouraged to find data which will support the departments position. Again, this compromises the scientific integrity of the grantee.
This is not to say that all grants are bad, but most of them are. It is difficult to find a grant which is completely clear of political implications.
I don't have any specific suggestions on how grants might be controlled in order to maintain scientific integrity. One way might be to eliminate government grants completely. This would be consistent with present efforts to control government expenditures and reduce the size and power of government. Government has its own laboratories, which can conduct research on about any subject. Government laboratories can also manipulate data, but results would be interpreted by the news media and the general public as more questionable than if the research had been performed in a third-party academic institution.
US Should Stay Out Of Libya
EIN News says, "Air Strikes Within 'Hours' After UN Libya Vote France said military action against Libya would come "within hours", as a UN vote approving air strikes was celebrated by rebels and Moamer Kadhafi's son said his family was "not afraid." (yahoo.com)".
That should make US hawks very happy.
However, the French statement is ill-defined. Does that mean France is on its way to start military action in Libya or does it mean that France expects the US to take the lead, while France stands on the sideline or gives token participation?
Let's also keep in mind that France now has a very large Muslim population, and President Sarkozy may only be making a hot air political statement.
I continue to be opposed to US involvement. We have no reason to believe that Qaddafi is killing innocent civilians. We know nothing about the ideology of the rebels. They may be worse to have in power than Gaddafi.
That should make US hawks very happy.
However, the French statement is ill-defined. Does that mean France is on its way to start military action in Libya or does it mean that France expects the US to take the lead, while France stands on the sideline or gives token participation?
Let's also keep in mind that France now has a very large Muslim population, and President Sarkozy may only be making a hot air political statement.
I continue to be opposed to US involvement. We have no reason to believe that Qaddafi is killing innocent civilians. We know nothing about the ideology of the rebels. They may be worse to have in power than Gaddafi.
Mercury and the National Institute of Standards and Technology
Let's first discuss analogies and word meanings by using some examples.
Glycerin is an innocuous water-soluble lubricant. Nitroglycerin is an explosive. Nitroglycerin is prepared from glycerin. It is a different compound.
Mercury is a non-toxic liquid metal. Methylmercury is toxic. Mercury is converted to methylmercury by microorganisms primarily in swamps.
With the recognition that methylmercury is a toxic material, there has been a general panic to eliminate all mercury from the environment. The only justification is that methylmercury is generated by microorganisms in the environment, without human involvement. Contrarily, preparation of nitroglycerin requires a distinct human-controlled operation.
However, the world is not one big swamp with mercury converting microorganisms ready to do their damage. Laboratories, where mercury has been used in thermometers, do not contain these microorganisms. Similarly, houses using mercury containing thermostats do not contain these microorganisms. The only source of mercury susceptible to conversion to methylmercury is that from coal-fired power plants. Emissions from such power plants contain small amounts of mercury which pervade the atmosphere and fall into swamps where the microbiological conversion to methylmercury takes place. Controls on coal-fired power plants continue to be instituted to reduce the source, even though the generated quantities of methylmercury are very small and dissipate into the general atmosphere.
Mercury containing thermometers used in laboratories is encapsulated within the glass bulbs of thermometers. If the bulbs break, the mercury is spilled. In the general interest of laboratory cleanliness and economy, spilled mercury is routinely physically recovered. Very small droplets are made to react with sulfur to form a solid material, which can be swept up, or with zinc to form a solid amalgam, which can similarly be easily collected. Many mercury compounds are not toxic to humans. In fact, mercuric oxide has been used for many years to treat eye infections.
With that background of technology and logic, we can proceed to the main point of this message.
The National Bureau of Standards was established by Congress in 1901. The purpose was to establish standards of measurement for uniformity in science and industry. For example, what is the standard length of a meter? What is the standard weight of a pound? The Bureau did its job well and we have no confusion in measurement standards.
However, subsequent political motivations have changed the nature of the Bureau, including its name, which is now the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The name change is associated with a change in policy. For example, part of the Institute's new responsibilities is to promote US industry. Presumably the justification for this is that the NIST is a part of the Commerce Department. The difficulty arises in that adding the new responsibility also leaves the Bureau open for other political maneuvering.
In its new political role, NIST has assumed the responsibility of removing mercury containing thermometers from society. As shown above, there is no technological justification for such action, nor does NIST have the right to assume that responsibility. This is another of many cases of government "overreach".
The argument can be presented that technology changes in temperature measurement have outmoded the need for mercury thermometers. It is a fact that digital thermometers have become the workhorse of temperature measurement in laboratories, industry and the home. It is also a fact that temperature can be measured by resistance changes in platinum. It may be that the NIST is now using this technology as a standard for temperature measurement. If so, I have no objection to this switch based upon the improved technology.
With the increased use of digital thermometers, the requirement of calibrating a mercury thermometer has become unnecessary. The Bureau previously ran such calibrations for industry on a fee basis and that requirement has dropped off such that the bureau is justified in no longer offering thermometer calibration service. However, a requirement for calibration of digital thermometers now is necessary, and I am wondering what the bureau is doing about that. If it does not offer such service, I also have no disagreement. Maintaining a temperature measurement standard and offering a calibration service are two different things. I hope that the Bureau maintains the temperature measurement standard, so that all in science and industry can be equally confident of the equality of heat involved in a standard degree Fahrenheit or Centigrade.
When people get involved in political considerations, they tend to lose sight of scientific facts. I would like the NIST to act like a Bureau of Standards, rather than a political body such as the EPA.
Glycerin is an innocuous water-soluble lubricant. Nitroglycerin is an explosive. Nitroglycerin is prepared from glycerin. It is a different compound.
Mercury is a non-toxic liquid metal. Methylmercury is toxic. Mercury is converted to methylmercury by microorganisms primarily in swamps.
With the recognition that methylmercury is a toxic material, there has been a general panic to eliminate all mercury from the environment. The only justification is that methylmercury is generated by microorganisms in the environment, without human involvement. Contrarily, preparation of nitroglycerin requires a distinct human-controlled operation.
However, the world is not one big swamp with mercury converting microorganisms ready to do their damage. Laboratories, where mercury has been used in thermometers, do not contain these microorganisms. Similarly, houses using mercury containing thermostats do not contain these microorganisms. The only source of mercury susceptible to conversion to methylmercury is that from coal-fired power plants. Emissions from such power plants contain small amounts of mercury which pervade the atmosphere and fall into swamps where the microbiological conversion to methylmercury takes place. Controls on coal-fired power plants continue to be instituted to reduce the source, even though the generated quantities of methylmercury are very small and dissipate into the general atmosphere.
Mercury containing thermometers used in laboratories is encapsulated within the glass bulbs of thermometers. If the bulbs break, the mercury is spilled. In the general interest of laboratory cleanliness and economy, spilled mercury is routinely physically recovered. Very small droplets are made to react with sulfur to form a solid material, which can be swept up, or with zinc to form a solid amalgam, which can similarly be easily collected. Many mercury compounds are not toxic to humans. In fact, mercuric oxide has been used for many years to treat eye infections.
With that background of technology and logic, we can proceed to the main point of this message.
The National Bureau of Standards was established by Congress in 1901. The purpose was to establish standards of measurement for uniformity in science and industry. For example, what is the standard length of a meter? What is the standard weight of a pound? The Bureau did its job well and we have no confusion in measurement standards.
However, subsequent political motivations have changed the nature of the Bureau, including its name, which is now the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The name change is associated with a change in policy. For example, part of the Institute's new responsibilities is to promote US industry. Presumably the justification for this is that the NIST is a part of the Commerce Department. The difficulty arises in that adding the new responsibility also leaves the Bureau open for other political maneuvering.
In its new political role, NIST has assumed the responsibility of removing mercury containing thermometers from society. As shown above, there is no technological justification for such action, nor does NIST have the right to assume that responsibility. This is another of many cases of government "overreach".
The argument can be presented that technology changes in temperature measurement have outmoded the need for mercury thermometers. It is a fact that digital thermometers have become the workhorse of temperature measurement in laboratories, industry and the home. It is also a fact that temperature can be measured by resistance changes in platinum. It may be that the NIST is now using this technology as a standard for temperature measurement. If so, I have no objection to this switch based upon the improved technology.
With the increased use of digital thermometers, the requirement of calibrating a mercury thermometer has become unnecessary. The Bureau previously ran such calibrations for industry on a fee basis and that requirement has dropped off such that the bureau is justified in no longer offering thermometer calibration service. However, a requirement for calibration of digital thermometers now is necessary, and I am wondering what the bureau is doing about that. If it does not offer such service, I also have no disagreement. Maintaining a temperature measurement standard and offering a calibration service are two different things. I hope that the Bureau maintains the temperature measurement standard, so that all in science and industry can be equally confident of the equality of heat involved in a standard degree Fahrenheit or Centigrade.
When people get involved in political considerations, they tend to lose sight of scientific facts. I would like the NIST to act like a Bureau of Standards, rather than a political body such as the EPA.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Do We Want to Start a Third US War in Libya?
EIN News says, "U.S. Mulls Air Strikes As Battle for Benghazi Looms Libyan government soldiers battled rebels on the road to the insurgent stronghold of Benghazi as the United States raised the possibility of air strikes to stop Muammar Gaddafi's forces. (reuters.com)".
Do we want to start a third war to help people who we know little about? It has been said that the rebels are basically the Muslim Brotherhood. Let's remember that Muslims are followers of Islam and their book is the Koran, which specifically says that it is a Muslim's responsibility to convert Christians to Islam or alternatively kill them.
Do we want to start a third war to help people who we know little about? It has been said that the rebels are basically the Muslim Brotherhood. Let's remember that Muslims are followers of Islam and their book is the Koran, which specifically says that it is a Muslim's responsibility to convert Christians to Islam or alternatively kill them.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Will We Be Swayed by the UN to Establish a No-Fly Zone in Libya?
EIN News says, "UN Supporters Introduce No-fly Resolution at UN Security Council supporters of a no-fly zone over Libya were working Wednesday to persuade the group's more reluctant members to back a UN resolution aimed at stopping Moammar Gadhafi's planes from bombing civilians. (foxnews.com)".
I am surprised at Fox news. They are normally reasonably unbiased in their reporting. In this case, the statement is inflammatory.
The question is whether will bomb or is bombing innocent civilians. While I am not familiar with all the details, it makes no sense that Gaddafi would bomb innocent civilians. His primary purpose is to protect his government and preserve his power against insurgent rebels.
These insurgent rebels are likely of civilian origin, but when they took up arms against the Qaddafi government, they gave up their "innocent civilian" status.
With respect to the UN supporters introducing a no-fly resolution at the UN, this is to be expected. Those Security Council supporters are of socialistic ideology and are also ignorant concerning the status of the rebels. I am also ignorant on that point, but suspect that most of the rebels are members or supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood. We need to consistently remind ourselves that Muslim doctrine is to kill Christians, unless they can be converted to Islam. Would we rather have the Muslim brotherhood in charge of Libya, with intent to do harm to the US and its Christian citizens wherever possible, or would we rather have Gaddafi remaining in power? Gaddafi has not been a friend to the United States, but the Muslim Brotherhood is likely to be worse.
The thing that worries me is that the UN Security Council may convince the Gen. Assembly to introduce a no-fly zone. If that occurs, we must recognize that in spite of the fact that UN actions have routinely been detrimental to the interests of the United States, we likely will be required and accede to a leadership position in securing a no-fly zone. This means supplying military at great cost, when we already have two ridiculous wars in progress.
I am surprised at Fox news. They are normally reasonably unbiased in their reporting. In this case, the statement is inflammatory.
The question is whether will bomb or is bombing innocent civilians. While I am not familiar with all the details, it makes no sense that Gaddafi would bomb innocent civilians. His primary purpose is to protect his government and preserve his power against insurgent rebels.
These insurgent rebels are likely of civilian origin, but when they took up arms against the Qaddafi government, they gave up their "innocent civilian" status.
With respect to the UN supporters introducing a no-fly resolution at the UN, this is to be expected. Those Security Council supporters are of socialistic ideology and are also ignorant concerning the status of the rebels. I am also ignorant on that point, but suspect that most of the rebels are members or supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood. We need to consistently remind ourselves that Muslim doctrine is to kill Christians, unless they can be converted to Islam. Would we rather have the Muslim brotherhood in charge of Libya, with intent to do harm to the US and its Christian citizens wherever possible, or would we rather have Gaddafi remaining in power? Gaddafi has not been a friend to the United States, but the Muslim Brotherhood is likely to be worse.
The thing that worries me is that the UN Security Council may convince the Gen. Assembly to introduce a no-fly zone. If that occurs, we must recognize that in spite of the fact that UN actions have routinely been detrimental to the interests of the United States, we likely will be required and accede to a leadership position in securing a no-fly zone. This means supplying military at great cost, when we already have two ridiculous wars in progress.
Who Controls the Federal Treasury Departmet's Payments?
Open letter to Rep. Neugebauer:
It has been said that the House controls the federal purse strings.
However in investigating the responsibilities of the Treasury Department, the following is mentioned:
"Collecting taxes, duties and monies paid to and due to the U.S. and paying all bills of the U.S."
Since the Treasury Department is under the control of the President, does Treasury take orders from the House or the President on what bills it should pay?
Comments would be appreciated from anyone receiving a copy of this e-mail
It has been said that the House controls the federal purse strings.
However in investigating the responsibilities of the Treasury Department, the following is mentioned:
"Collecting taxes, duties and monies paid to and due to the U.S. and paying all bills of the U.S."
Since the Treasury Department is under the control of the President, does Treasury take orders from the House or the President on what bills it should pay?
Comments would be appreciated from anyone receiving a copy of this e-mail
Is Buying Support with Libyan Oil Money Unethical?
EIN News says, "Libya's Oil Money Let Qaddafi Buy Support in Africa From Liberia to South Africa to the island of Madagascar, Libya's holdings are like a giant venture capital fund, geared to make friends and win influence in the poorest region in the world. This may help explain how Colonel Qaddafi has been able to summon sub-Saharan African soldiers to fight for him in his time of need - Libyans have spoken of "African mercenaries" killing protesters and helping him rout rebel fighters - and why so many African leaders have been so slow to criticize him, even as his forces slaughter his own people. (nytimes.com)".
This is an inflammatory statement typical of the New York Times.
I am not a supporter of Qaddafi. He is a dictator. However we need to judge the actions of dictators or anyone in the proper context. The fact that Qaddafi has used oil revenues to gain the support of poor regions of the world is not without precedent. The United States has done this and continues to do this regularly using taxpayer money and money garnered from inflating the currency.
I don't condone either of these actions, but they are consistent with the facts of life. Money is power and is routinely used to support and gain influence for the holder. I don't see how this can be changed. Meanwhile, let us not unduly criticize the left hand, while the right hand is doing the same thing.
This is an inflammatory statement typical of the New York Times.
I am not a supporter of Qaddafi. He is a dictator. However we need to judge the actions of dictators or anyone in the proper context. The fact that Qaddafi has used oil revenues to gain the support of poor regions of the world is not without precedent. The United States has done this and continues to do this regularly using taxpayer money and money garnered from inflating the currency.
I don't condone either of these actions, but they are consistent with the facts of life. Money is power and is routinely used to support and gain influence for the holder. I don't see how this can be changed. Meanwhile, let us not unduly criticize the left hand, while the right hand is doing the same thing.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Short-Term Budget and Zero Budgeting
Open letter to Representative Randy Neugebauer (Texas):
Dear Randy,
I just read your latest newsletter.
You say funding the government for a week or two at a time is not the answer, and you will not continue to support short-term funding as a long-term operating solution.
I believe most of us will partially agree with that statement, but I caution you not to concentrate on the fact that you must have a long-term budget solution, because in so doing you weaken your position and resolve to stop the Socialist/Democrats in their tracks.
This is a hard ball game. You can't get everything you like. You can give up the long-term budget solution temporarily, if you want to whack the stuffing out of excess spending proposals.
I strongly suggest that you aim for zero budgeting of all the various administrative departments. This means that they must explain the justification for any expense from the first dollar, not only for any increase above past expenditures.
Dear Randy,
I just read your latest newsletter.
You say funding the government for a week or two at a time is not the answer, and you will not continue to support short-term funding as a long-term operating solution.
I believe most of us will partially agree with that statement, but I caution you not to concentrate on the fact that you must have a long-term budget solution, because in so doing you weaken your position and resolve to stop the Socialist/Democrats in their tracks.
This is a hard ball game. You can't get everything you like. You can give up the long-term budget solution temporarily, if you want to whack the stuffing out of excess spending proposals.
I strongly suggest that you aim for zero budgeting of all the various administrative departments. This means that they must explain the justification for any expense from the first dollar, not only for any increase above past expenditures.
Lack of Diligence in Congress
From an associate.
The picture did not come through to the blog, but the comments below are still revealing.
"This picture is worth a trillion $$
House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk, pictured standing, far right, speaks while colleagues Rep. Barbara Lambert, D-Milford and Rep. Jack F. Hennessy, D-Bridgeport, play solitaire Monday night as the House convened to vote on a new budget. (AP)
The guy sitting in the row in front of these two....he's on Facebook, and the guy behind Hennessy is checking out the baseball scores.
These are the folks that couldn't get the budget out by Oct. 1, and are about to control your health care, cap and trade, and the list goes on and on….
Should we buy them larger screen computers - or - a ticket home, permanently?
This is one of their 3-DAY WORK WEEKS that we all pay for (salary is about $179,000 per year)."
The picture did not come through to the blog, but the comments below are still revealing.
"This picture is worth a trillion $$
House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk, pictured standing, far right, speaks while colleagues Rep. Barbara Lambert, D-Milford and Rep. Jack F. Hennessy, D-Bridgeport, play solitaire Monday night as the House convened to vote on a new budget. (AP)
The guy sitting in the row in front of these two....he's on Facebook, and the guy behind Hennessy is checking out the baseball scores.
These are the folks that couldn't get the budget out by Oct. 1, and are about to control your health care, cap and trade, and the list goes on and on….
Should we buy them larger screen computers - or - a ticket home, permanently?
This is one of their 3-DAY WORK WEEKS that we all pay for (salary is about $179,000 per year)."
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Analysis of Proposed Federal Budget Cuts
Congratulations to Cheryl Hogue and Jeff Johnson of C&E News for their honest reporting on House Federal Funding Slashes in the February 28 issue. A grudging congratulation also to Rudy Baum for allowing Hogue and Johnson to do some honest reporting.
Rudy and I are opinionists. We choose our data and put our personal slants on it to support the political points we desire based on our ideologies. Rudy is a socialist/communist. I am the reverse, whatever term you want to apply.
On the various items covered by Hogue and Johnson in their article, I now make the following personal comments.
Total Spending Cuts - The House wants $61 billion in budget cuts. The Senate is opposed. It's a push and shove contest with the possibility of some temporary compromise. I say temporary, because I think the handwriting is on the wall from the midterm elections that both the House and Senate and new President will be favorable to budget cuts in the next administration. In other words, I think there is hope for a return of government programs at least partial sanity.
The Department of Energy - The House wants to cut $3 billion. This is a step in the right direction but with the wrong momentum. The budget is $13 billion. The DOE has been spending tremendous amounts of money for many years with no practical improvement of our energy supplies. In fact they have been instrumental in reducing energy supply through a program to eliminate oil and gas from the economy. Let's pound the DOE into insignificance.
Office of Science - The House wants to cut $900 million from a $4 billion budget. I don't know what the Office of Science does and they likely don't know either. I suggest we eliminate the Office.
Renewable Energy - I don't know what departments this falls under, but the House wants to cut $800 million from a $1.5 billion budget and eliminate loan guarantees for solar and wind power developments. Good suggestions, but they don't go far enough. Wipe out the whole $1.5 billion budget. We have sufficient oil and gas to supply all of our energy needs for an indeterminate number of years with the possibility of falling back on an indeterminate number of years for coal, which can be used to make syngas. There is a minor place for solar and wind energy, but it can be developed by private industry without government taxpayer support. Oil is presently in short supply, but that is only the result of government restrictions. That can be changed quickly.
EPA - The House wants to cut $3 billion out of a $10.3 billion budget and restrict EPA regulation of carbon dioxide and five other of what they call greenhouse gases. This is a great move to curtail projected expenditures for carbon dioxide control, which has no basis of involvement in climate change. Carbon dioxide and it's associated Cap & Trade have only been used in a political sense as an effort to increase tax revenues and redistribute wealth worldwide. We need the EPA, but we also need them to be an organization concerned with science and the financial aspects of pollution control. It may be that the five other greenhouse gases should eventually be controlled, but there should be scientific data to justify such action.
Other Climate Change - The House wants to eliminate financial support for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That organization is a boondoggle. There will continue to be climate change. We have it every day and every year, but until we have data which supports any supposition that the basis is anthropogenic, we don't need to study efforts to control it. Starve the Intergovernmental Panel.
Ethanol in Gasoline - The concentration of ethanol in gasoline was previously capped at 10%. The EPA later raised to 15%. The House bill cuts it back to 10%. A good move but this doesn't get at the basis of the problem. Ethanol is more expensive to produce than gasoline. The only reason for the dilution is subsidies to ethanol producers, which makes the apparent cost of ethanol less than that of gasoline. Cut off the subsidies for ethanol and the uneconomical dilution will die on the vine.
Research Agencies - The House wants to cut $300 million from the total budgets of the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. The National Institute of Standards & Technologies would receive a cut of $70 million. The establishment of a National Climate Service would be killed. The budget for the NSF is $6 billion. I don't know what the budgets are for the National Institutes of Health and the Institute of Standards and Technologies, but they are likely of the same order of magnitude as that for the NSF. All three of these agencies should obtain zero budgeting, which means they should define every project that they plan to work on, with the objectives, amounts of money necessary to conduct the research, and estimates of the probability for success. I am very familiar with industrial research and know full well the opportunity of pouring money down a rat hole to pursue projects that have little or no significant value.
Rudy and I are opinionists. We choose our data and put our personal slants on it to support the political points we desire based on our ideologies. Rudy is a socialist/communist. I am the reverse, whatever term you want to apply.
On the various items covered by Hogue and Johnson in their article, I now make the following personal comments.
Total Spending Cuts - The House wants $61 billion in budget cuts. The Senate is opposed. It's a push and shove contest with the possibility of some temporary compromise. I say temporary, because I think the handwriting is on the wall from the midterm elections that both the House and Senate and new President will be favorable to budget cuts in the next administration. In other words, I think there is hope for a return of government programs at least partial sanity.
The Department of Energy - The House wants to cut $3 billion. This is a step in the right direction but with the wrong momentum. The budget is $13 billion. The DOE has been spending tremendous amounts of money for many years with no practical improvement of our energy supplies. In fact they have been instrumental in reducing energy supply through a program to eliminate oil and gas from the economy. Let's pound the DOE into insignificance.
Office of Science - The House wants to cut $900 million from a $4 billion budget. I don't know what the Office of Science does and they likely don't know either. I suggest we eliminate the Office.
Renewable Energy - I don't know what departments this falls under, but the House wants to cut $800 million from a $1.5 billion budget and eliminate loan guarantees for solar and wind power developments. Good suggestions, but they don't go far enough. Wipe out the whole $1.5 billion budget. We have sufficient oil and gas to supply all of our energy needs for an indeterminate number of years with the possibility of falling back on an indeterminate number of years for coal, which can be used to make syngas. There is a minor place for solar and wind energy, but it can be developed by private industry without government taxpayer support. Oil is presently in short supply, but that is only the result of government restrictions. That can be changed quickly.
EPA - The House wants to cut $3 billion out of a $10.3 billion budget and restrict EPA regulation of carbon dioxide and five other of what they call greenhouse gases. This is a great move to curtail projected expenditures for carbon dioxide control, which has no basis of involvement in climate change. Carbon dioxide and it's associated Cap & Trade have only been used in a political sense as an effort to increase tax revenues and redistribute wealth worldwide. We need the EPA, but we also need them to be an organization concerned with science and the financial aspects of pollution control. It may be that the five other greenhouse gases should eventually be controlled, but there should be scientific data to justify such action.
Other Climate Change - The House wants to eliminate financial support for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That organization is a boondoggle. There will continue to be climate change. We have it every day and every year, but until we have data which supports any supposition that the basis is anthropogenic, we don't need to study efforts to control it. Starve the Intergovernmental Panel.
Ethanol in Gasoline - The concentration of ethanol in gasoline was previously capped at 10%. The EPA later raised to 15%. The House bill cuts it back to 10%. A good move but this doesn't get at the basis of the problem. Ethanol is more expensive to produce than gasoline. The only reason for the dilution is subsidies to ethanol producers, which makes the apparent cost of ethanol less than that of gasoline. Cut off the subsidies for ethanol and the uneconomical dilution will die on the vine.
Research Agencies - The House wants to cut $300 million from the total budgets of the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. The National Institute of Standards & Technologies would receive a cut of $70 million. The establishment of a National Climate Service would be killed. The budget for the NSF is $6 billion. I don't know what the budgets are for the National Institutes of Health and the Institute of Standards and Technologies, but they are likely of the same order of magnitude as that for the NSF. All three of these agencies should obtain zero budgeting, which means they should define every project that they plan to work on, with the objectives, amounts of money necessary to conduct the research, and estimates of the probability for success. I am very familiar with industrial research and know full well the opportunity of pouring money down a rat hole to pursue projects that have little or no significant value.
Use of a Trade Magazine As a Political Forum
Chemical & Engineering News is a trade magazine for the chemical industry and academics. The Editor in Chief is Rudy Baum, who is a confirmed socialist. He periodically writes editorials which mostly are politically oriented. I have suggested previously that in view of the magazines purpose, he should be confining himself to matters of chemistry. If he wants to discuss politics, he should run for some political office or become a columnist for some socialistic rag.
In the February 28 issue of C&E News, Rudy writes about the present political controversy concerning the federal budget. In his last paragraph he says, "The current budget debate, you see, isn't really about the budget at all. It's about using the power of the purse to accomplish ideological goals that are unpalatable to most Americans in and of themselves". I usually disagree with most of what Rudy says, but in this case, I agree at least in part with his last statement. Conversely to what he says, the budget debate IS about the budget. The motivation for the debate is about the power of the purse to accomplish ideological goals. I don't understand what he means about the ideological goals being unpalatable to most Americans in and of themselves.
Socialists, also known as Democrats, believe in big government with power to confiscate the assets of private individuals, in order to establish programs which the leaders will supervise to their own advantage. Rudy touches on this by discussing taxes. He says the taxes do three things. Taxes remove money from our pockets, money that we would like to keep possession of, to save, invest, or spend on goods and services of our own choice. He calls that a negative impact of tax. He says a positive impact of taxes is paying for services and institutions, such as defense forces and infrastructure like highway bridges. I can agree with the need for taxes, since it is difficult and sometimes impractical for individuals or private industry to do an effective job in establishing and maintaining military forces for defense and establishing major projects such as a national highway system.
Rudy says the third thing that taxes do is influence behavior. He calls this a good thing, and uses an example of a 29% increase in the budget for Food and Drug Administration "to improve food safety, develop technology for responding to emergency diseases and develop an approval pathway for genetic versions of biologic drugs". I don't see that any of this has a significant relationship to influencing behavior. The practical aspects of higher taxes are to discourage investment in productive enterprises benefiting the public and reduce the incentive for job creation.
Just where Rudy has obtained the background for his socialistic leanings is unknown to me. It is probably not the same as that of President Obama, whose early cultural training was in Indonesia and Hawaii before it became a US state. Whatever the source of Rudy's beliefs, I believe he has a right to hold them. My only objection is that he does not have the right to use a trade journal as a forum for political persuasion.
In the February 28 issue of C&E News, Rudy writes about the present political controversy concerning the federal budget. In his last paragraph he says, "The current budget debate, you see, isn't really about the budget at all. It's about using the power of the purse to accomplish ideological goals that are unpalatable to most Americans in and of themselves". I usually disagree with most of what Rudy says, but in this case, I agree at least in part with his last statement. Conversely to what he says, the budget debate IS about the budget. The motivation for the debate is about the power of the purse to accomplish ideological goals. I don't understand what he means about the ideological goals being unpalatable to most Americans in and of themselves.
Socialists, also known as Democrats, believe in big government with power to confiscate the assets of private individuals, in order to establish programs which the leaders will supervise to their own advantage. Rudy touches on this by discussing taxes. He says the taxes do three things. Taxes remove money from our pockets, money that we would like to keep possession of, to save, invest, or spend on goods and services of our own choice. He calls that a negative impact of tax. He says a positive impact of taxes is paying for services and institutions, such as defense forces and infrastructure like highway bridges. I can agree with the need for taxes, since it is difficult and sometimes impractical for individuals or private industry to do an effective job in establishing and maintaining military forces for defense and establishing major projects such as a national highway system.
Rudy says the third thing that taxes do is influence behavior. He calls this a good thing, and uses an example of a 29% increase in the budget for Food and Drug Administration "to improve food safety, develop technology for responding to emergency diseases and develop an approval pathway for genetic versions of biologic drugs". I don't see that any of this has a significant relationship to influencing behavior. The practical aspects of higher taxes are to discourage investment in productive enterprises benefiting the public and reduce the incentive for job creation.
Just where Rudy has obtained the background for his socialistic leanings is unknown to me. It is probably not the same as that of President Obama, whose early cultural training was in Indonesia and Hawaii before it became a US state. Whatever the source of Rudy's beliefs, I believe he has a right to hold them. My only objection is that he does not have the right to use a trade journal as a forum for political persuasion.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Support the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya?
EIN News says, "Discord Grows in Washington Over a Potential Role in the Libya Conflict Nearly three weeks after Libya erupted in what may now turn into a protracted civil war, the politics of military intervention to speed the ouster of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi grow more complicated by the day รข€” for both the White House and Republicans. President Obama, appearing with Australia's prime minister, tried to raise the pressure on Colonel Qaddafi further by talking about "a range of potential options, including potential military options" against the embattled Libyan leader. (nytimes.com)".
I'm glad to see discord in Washington, because with such discord there is little likelihood of action, which is really the correct approach.
The basis of the apparent discord is not revealed, but presumably it is those who are for and those who are against military intervention.
For those who are favorable to military intervention, I ask, as I have before, do you really want to support a rebel organization which is likely to result in Libyan control by the Muslim brotherhood, whose doctrine is to either convert Christians to Islam or kill them.
I'm glad to see discord in Washington, because with such discord there is little likelihood of action, which is really the correct approach.
The basis of the apparent discord is not revealed, but presumably it is those who are for and those who are against military intervention.
For those who are favorable to military intervention, I ask, as I have before, do you really want to support a rebel organization which is likely to result in Libyan control by the Muslim brotherhood, whose doctrine is to either convert Christians to Islam or kill them.
NPR - A Leftist Organization
I recently wrote an article, entitled "When Is a Budget Not a Budget?". This was submitted to a group of what I call my Political Advisers and was also printed on my blog, with a reference from Twitter.
My daughter responded with a suggestion that perhaps I should make application to read the article on NPR, since NPR has a program fostering such readings. I responded as follows:
"Karen,
I'm sorry to report some bad news concerning National Public Radio (NPR). Neal Boortz reported it on his radio program this morning.
NPR CEO Schiller and an associate were set up for a luncheon meeting with two imposter Muslims. The imposter status of the "Muslims" had not been revealed to Schiller and associate. The subsequent conversation was also secretly recorded.
The "Muslims" explained that they represented the Muslim Brotherhood. They felt that since significant financial support exists for Israel propaganda, the Brotherhood would like to donate $5 million to NPR in order to establish some sort of balance.
Schiller responded that this would seem justified. Similar to the previous program to bring women's voices more into public radio, he felt that Muslim voices should have similar growth. He also revealed his personal political leanings by denigrating the Tea Party as a group of white supremacists. Conversely, he felt that the Liberals, such as himself, were more intelligent, and better educated to see the broader picture.
Unfortunately, I was interrupted by a phone call and was unable to learn whether Schiller accepted the $5 million offer.
CEOs and Boards of Directors make the policies of all organizations. In a continuing organization, there is uniformity of beliefs between the CEO and the Board.
NPR is a leftist organization. I will not work with them, will take every opportunity to denigrate their operations, and continue efforts to eliminate their existence."
My daughter responded with a suggestion that perhaps I should make application to read the article on NPR, since NPR has a program fostering such readings. I responded as follows:
"Karen,
I'm sorry to report some bad news concerning National Public Radio (NPR). Neal Boortz reported it on his radio program this morning.
NPR CEO Schiller and an associate were set up for a luncheon meeting with two imposter Muslims. The imposter status of the "Muslims" had not been revealed to Schiller and associate. The subsequent conversation was also secretly recorded.
The "Muslims" explained that they represented the Muslim Brotherhood. They felt that since significant financial support exists for Israel propaganda, the Brotherhood would like to donate $5 million to NPR in order to establish some sort of balance.
Schiller responded that this would seem justified. Similar to the previous program to bring women's voices more into public radio, he felt that Muslim voices should have similar growth. He also revealed his personal political leanings by denigrating the Tea Party as a group of white supremacists. Conversely, he felt that the Liberals, such as himself, were more intelligent, and better educated to see the broader picture.
Unfortunately, I was interrupted by a phone call and was unable to learn whether Schiller accepted the $5 million offer.
CEOs and Boards of Directors make the policies of all organizations. In a continuing organization, there is uniformity of beliefs between the CEO and the Board.
NPR is a leftist organization. I will not work with them, will take every opportunity to denigrate their operations, and continue efforts to eliminate their existence."
When is a Budget Not a Budget?
I was reading the article on the Federal Science Budget by Susan Morrisey in the February 21 issue of Chemical & Engineering News . I started to compare that with treatment of my own financial expenses.
When I have an expense, I write it as an amount for a purpose. For example, if I spend $200 on my electric bill, I list it as $200 for electricity. It is unstated, but I know and everybody else knows, that the electricity is used to run my refrigerator, lights, computers, etc.. In other words, there's nothing hidden in the financial entry. When I make a budget, I use the same procedure. The only difference is that the budget involves anticipated expenses, rather than current expenses.
I looked at the federal budget listing for R&D and concentrated on the following:
Energy $13 billion up 20%
National Science Foundation $6 billion up 18%
Commerce $2 billion up 29%
Education $0.5 billion up 35%
Maybe everyone else understand what that is all about, but I don't. I asked myself, "Why there are increases ranging from 18 to 35%". R&D stands for Research and Development. Perhaps everyone is satisfied with such specificity, but I am not. It would be the same as my putting in my budget an amount for "Projected Expense". I want to know what the additional expected federal expenses will be used for. What new projects are there? Am I just supposed to leave it to a bureaucrat's judgment concerning the necessity for the expense, without explanation, or do I have a right to have some information on what basis to make a judgment concerning legitimacy? A typical bureaucratic reply would be that it's too complicated for me to understand. But that's hogwash. If I couldn't understand it, neither could the bureaucrats.
Let's go on to the budgeted amounts. They range from $0.5 billion for Education to $13 billion for Energy. If I were to ask what those funds will be spent for, I would likely not get an explanation. If I did get an explanation, it would likely specify salaries, space rental or amortization, scientific equipment, legal fees, and a host of other individual expenses. But that would not be an answer to my question. My question is really why are we spending these sums of money at the federal level? What are the various projects? What are we trying to accomplish? Can it be done cheaper at the local levels?
I guess it all boils down to one simple question that can be applied to every individual expense and every project involving those expenses. Why?
Until the general public recognizes that the federal government, and governments at all levels should operate on the same financial basis as individuals and corporations, we, the public, will be victims of fraud and deception on the part of bureaucrats pursuing their personal unexplained objectives.
When I have an expense, I write it as an amount for a purpose. For example, if I spend $200 on my electric bill, I list it as $200 for electricity. It is unstated, but I know and everybody else knows, that the electricity is used to run my refrigerator, lights, computers, etc.. In other words, there's nothing hidden in the financial entry. When I make a budget, I use the same procedure. The only difference is that the budget involves anticipated expenses, rather than current expenses.
I looked at the federal budget listing for R&D and concentrated on the following:
Energy $13 billion up 20%
National Science Foundation $6 billion up 18%
Commerce $2 billion up 29%
Education $0.5 billion up 35%
Maybe everyone else understand what that is all about, but I don't. I asked myself, "Why there are increases ranging from 18 to 35%". R&D stands for Research and Development. Perhaps everyone is satisfied with such specificity, but I am not. It would be the same as my putting in my budget an amount for "Projected Expense". I want to know what the additional expected federal expenses will be used for. What new projects are there? Am I just supposed to leave it to a bureaucrat's judgment concerning the necessity for the expense, without explanation, or do I have a right to have some information on what basis to make a judgment concerning legitimacy? A typical bureaucratic reply would be that it's too complicated for me to understand. But that's hogwash. If I couldn't understand it, neither could the bureaucrats.
Let's go on to the budgeted amounts. They range from $0.5 billion for Education to $13 billion for Energy. If I were to ask what those funds will be spent for, I would likely not get an explanation. If I did get an explanation, it would likely specify salaries, space rental or amortization, scientific equipment, legal fees, and a host of other individual expenses. But that would not be an answer to my question. My question is really why are we spending these sums of money at the federal level? What are the various projects? What are we trying to accomplish? Can it be done cheaper at the local levels?
I guess it all boils down to one simple question that can be applied to every individual expense and every project involving those expenses. Why?
Until the general public recognizes that the federal government, and governments at all levels should operate on the same financial basis as individuals and corporations, we, the public, will be victims of fraud and deception on the part of bureaucrats pursuing their personal unexplained objectives.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Is the Obama Administration Planning to Work with Islam to Destroy US Culture?
EIN News says, "Obama Administration Prepares for Possibility of New Post-Revolt Islamist The Obama administration is preparing for the prospect that Islamist governments will take hold in North Africa and the Middle East, acknowledging that the popular revolutions there will bring a more religious cast to the region's politics. (washingtonpost.com)".
The Obama administration has consistently avoided considering that the Middle East uprisings likely will bring to power a new group of Islamic clerics, who will work to the disadvantage of the US. Let's also remember that a doctrine of Islam is to kill Christians if they cannot be converted to Islam.
President Obama has had foreign Islamic training in his early education, and because of that education in Hawaii and Indonesia, he appears to have no understanding or loyalty to traditional US culture. We must grudgingly congratulate the members of his administration for the fact that they are loyal to their boss, even though they are misguided and working against the interests of the US.
Notice that in the Obama administration's preparation for Islamist governments take-over in North Africa and the Middle East, it does not say what that preparation involves. Since the Administration has previously shown favoritism toward Islam, it may be that the current preparation is to develop procedures to more effectively work with Islam toward the destruction of traditional US culture.
The Obama administration has consistently avoided considering that the Middle East uprisings likely will bring to power a new group of Islamic clerics, who will work to the disadvantage of the US. Let's also remember that a doctrine of Islam is to kill Christians if they cannot be converted to Islam.
President Obama has had foreign Islamic training in his early education, and because of that education in Hawaii and Indonesia, he appears to have no understanding or loyalty to traditional US culture. We must grudgingly congratulate the members of his administration for the fact that they are loyal to their boss, even though they are misguided and working against the interests of the US.
Notice that in the Obama administration's preparation for Islamist governments take-over in North Africa and the Middle East, it does not say what that preparation involves. Since the Administration has previously shown favoritism toward Islam, it may be that the current preparation is to develop procedures to more effectively work with Islam toward the destruction of traditional US culture.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
The US Should Stay Out Of the Libyan Conflict
The US should not become involved in the Libyan uprisings for the following reasons:
1. We do not know the ideology of the rebels. It is likely that they are Muslims, who may seize political control and become more of a US adversary than the Gaddafi administration.
2. We already have a poor record on nationbuilding.
3. We are already over-extended militarily with the pursuit of two ridiculous wars.
4. We cannot get our own financial house in order on present budget considerations and cannot consider additional military outlays.
5. We should not deceive ourselves into thinking that US establishment of a "no-fly zone" over Libya would be a low-cost help. In fact this would be a high-cost declaration of war.
6. We should not deceive ourselves into thinking that the poor people of Libya, need our humane help or our support to establish their freedom. Libya actually has good financial resources through petroleum sales and the likelihood is that the rebel leadership if successful will only be another form of autonomy.
1. We do not know the ideology of the rebels. It is likely that they are Muslims, who may seize political control and become more of a US adversary than the Gaddafi administration.
2. We already have a poor record on nationbuilding.
3. We are already over-extended militarily with the pursuit of two ridiculous wars.
4. We cannot get our own financial house in order on present budget considerations and cannot consider additional military outlays.
5. We should not deceive ourselves into thinking that US establishment of a "no-fly zone" over Libya would be a low-cost help. In fact this would be a high-cost declaration of war.
6. We should not deceive ourselves into thinking that the poor people of Libya, need our humane help or our support to establish their freedom. Libya actually has good financial resources through petroleum sales and the likelihood is that the rebel leadership if successful will only be another form of autonomy.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Default Payments on Foreign Purchases?
EIN News says, "West Governments Mulls Halting Oil Payments to Libya Italian foreign minister Frattini said five Western governments are discussing the suspension of payments to Libya for oil and gas as part of plan to cut all financial flows to the regime of Col. Moammar Gadhafi. (wsj.com)".
Wow! How innovative! If you are broke, you find some reasons to not pay your bills.
West European governments have been for many years following a socialistic program of entitlements, which has put them on the verge of bankruptcy. They apparently don't have the guts to start cutting back on those entitlements, and would rather pursue a course of defaulting on foreign financial obligations by use of immoral reasoning.
I wonder if the US would be included in "West Governments" and will follow the same immoral course. The handwriting is on the wall to follow that procedure as the UN and the US government support the uprising in Libya as a democratic movement, when in fact it is more likely a Muslim political takeover. In spite of whatever it really is, should the US allow corporations to default on their payments for oil received from Libya?
Wow! How innovative! If you are broke, you find some reasons to not pay your bills.
West European governments have been for many years following a socialistic program of entitlements, which has put them on the verge of bankruptcy. They apparently don't have the guts to start cutting back on those entitlements, and would rather pursue a course of defaulting on foreign financial obligations by use of immoral reasoning.
I wonder if the US would be included in "West Governments" and will follow the same immoral course. The handwriting is on the wall to follow that procedure as the UN and the US government support the uprising in Libya as a democratic movement, when in fact it is more likely a Muslim political takeover. In spite of whatever it really is, should the US allow corporations to default on their payments for oil received from Libya?
Mideast Revolts Are Bad News for the US
EIN News says, "As Regimes Fall in Arab World, Al Qaeda Sees History Fly By For nearly two decades, the leaders of Al Qaeda have denounced the Arab world's dictators as heretics and puppets of the West and called for their downfall. Now, people in country after country have risen to topple their leaders รข€” and Al Qaeda has played absolutely no role. (nytimes.com)".
The New York Times must have a somewhat distorted sense of logic to come to that conclusion. Notice that the Times says the leaders of Al Qaeda have denounced the Arab world dictators for nearly 2 decades and called for their downfall. This is now happening. How can one conclude that two decades of efforts have not played a part in this Al Qaeda success?
Several of the Arab world states have been very cooperative with the US, in spite of contrary news comments. Those governments will no longer be as cooperative in the future, since they will be dominated more by Islamic leaders, as has previously occurred in Iran with the overthrow of the Shah.
Muslim leadership is on the rise in the Middle East and will work to the disadvantage of US. Let's also keep in the back of our mind that the Islamic directive is to convert all people to Islam, and if that fails, kill them.
The New York Times must have a somewhat distorted sense of logic to come to that conclusion. Notice that the Times says the leaders of Al Qaeda have denounced the Arab world dictators for nearly 2 decades and called for their downfall. This is now happening. How can one conclude that two decades of efforts have not played a part in this Al Qaeda success?
Several of the Arab world states have been very cooperative with the US, in spite of contrary news comments. Those governments will no longer be as cooperative in the future, since they will be dominated more by Islamic leaders, as has previously occurred in Iran with the overthrow of the Shah.
Muslim leadership is on the rise in the Middle East and will work to the disadvantage of US. Let's also keep in the back of our mind that the Islamic directive is to convert all people to Islam, and if that fails, kill them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
