Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
Randy,
I just saw on TV that we are flying injured Libyan rebels to the US for medical treatment.
What kind of insanity is this?
There is strong evidence that the rebels are primarily Muslim. May I remind you that the ideology of Islam is to kill non-believers. THAT INCLUDES MOST AMERICANS. Tunisia has just voted in a Muslim government. We helped the Egyptians in their revolt and now find that government in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is antagonistic to the US.
What about compassion? One must use it very, very carefully. In the Movie "Saving Private Ryan", Tom Hanks, as a captain searching for Private Ryan, captures a German prisoner. The nature of the mission makes it impractical to carry prisoners. Hank's patrol members want to execute the prisoner, but Hanks frees him. The prisoner than rejoins his outfit and is able to kill a few more Americans. So much for compassion in time of war. Or, did you think the Libyan operation was not a war?
Consider also that we are broke, which means we have to borrow money to supply medical treatment to our probable enemies. Another aspect of insanity!
Randy, please get onto whoever is responsible for this ridiculous error of judgment and have him get his head screwed on right or relieve him of his management position.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Agency Grants to Universities Foster Dishonesty in Research
Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
Randy,
I'm back on the subject of research grants to universities. The October 10 issue of Chemical and Engineering News has an article entitled, "Dow Invests in Education". Dow Chremical will spend $250 million over the next 10 years to support breakthrough chemical technologies at 11 major universities.
I find this especially good news, because it shows that private industry can and will support research at universities. You can also be sure that Dow will follow their expenditures to see that they are getting something for their money. Since Dow is in the chemical business, it is obvious that they will be looking toward developments, which have some advantage to their business.
The granting of research funds is not in itself a negative factor. Somewhat like the chemical industry, the government is expecting something for each of its granys. In most cases, the agencies expect research results, which will support the agency's ideological position on the subject for which the grant was made. It is also obvious to the grant receiver that unless he comes up with an answer, which will be satisfactory to the agency, there will be no further grants.
I have long believed that government agencies follow the political ideology of the Administration, After all, the President is the boss of each Agency Director. If a Director does not follow the boss's instructions, he will not be considered part of the team and will be out on his ear. One of the present Administration ideologies is that CO2 in the atmosphere is bad and every effort must be made to control it. The fact that there is no sound scientific basis for this position impels the Administration and its Agencies to issue research grants to find reasons to support the Administrations position. The Administration's goal is to limit emissions of carbon dioxide from various sources such as power plants and cement kilns. Increased acceptance of electric cars is also part of the program, We can only speculate on why the Administration is following this program and can only guess that it is part of the communistic ideology to more equitably distribute wealth on a global basis.
I also recently heard John Huntsman say on television that he is a strong supporter of the theory that carbon dioxide emissions affect climate change. He says that scientists support this conclusion and should not be ignored. Bologney!. He does not know how many real scientists support this theory of carbon dioxide related to global warming nor does he consider the "bribery" system of the various government agencies, as mentioned above.
Even without the private industry support of university research, I continue to strongly propose that Congress should eliminate all government agency research grants to universities. This will only not only lead to honest research, but also will be another step in reducing our budget deficit and national debt.
Randy,
I'm back on the subject of research grants to universities. The October 10 issue of Chemical and Engineering News has an article entitled, "Dow Invests in Education". Dow Chremical will spend $250 million over the next 10 years to support breakthrough chemical technologies at 11 major universities.
I find this especially good news, because it shows that private industry can and will support research at universities. You can also be sure that Dow will follow their expenditures to see that they are getting something for their money. Since Dow is in the chemical business, it is obvious that they will be looking toward developments, which have some advantage to their business.
The granting of research funds is not in itself a negative factor. Somewhat like the chemical industry, the government is expecting something for each of its granys. In most cases, the agencies expect research results, which will support the agency's ideological position on the subject for which the grant was made. It is also obvious to the grant receiver that unless he comes up with an answer, which will be satisfactory to the agency, there will be no further grants.
I have long believed that government agencies follow the political ideology of the Administration, After all, the President is the boss of each Agency Director. If a Director does not follow the boss's instructions, he will not be considered part of the team and will be out on his ear. One of the present Administration ideologies is that CO2 in the atmosphere is bad and every effort must be made to control it. The fact that there is no sound scientific basis for this position impels the Administration and its Agencies to issue research grants to find reasons to support the Administrations position. The Administration's goal is to limit emissions of carbon dioxide from various sources such as power plants and cement kilns. Increased acceptance of electric cars is also part of the program, We can only speculate on why the Administration is following this program and can only guess that it is part of the communistic ideology to more equitably distribute wealth on a global basis.
I also recently heard John Huntsman say on television that he is a strong supporter of the theory that carbon dioxide emissions affect climate change. He says that scientists support this conclusion and should not be ignored. Bologney!. He does not know how many real scientists support this theory of carbon dioxide related to global warming nor does he consider the "bribery" system of the various government agencies, as mentioned above.
Even without the private industry support of university research, I continue to strongly propose that Congress should eliminate all government agency research grants to universities. This will only not only lead to honest research, but also will be another step in reducing our budget deficit and national debt.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Rep. Neugebauer's Newsletter
Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
Randy,
I read your latest newsletter.
You are favorable to the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, but you are concerned that it it will "diminish progress we have made in the area". What progress? We are not in the business of nation building, or at least shall we say. There is no humanitarian consideration, which should not be a big factor anyhow. We have no intention of taking Iraqi oil. The only possible concern that you could have is to have troops on the ground in the vicinity of Iran to hopefully deter them from military action against Israel. That is also silly. With the advent of terrorism, we have learned some new tactics of war. Basically, you don't need troops on the ground, you demonstrate military might through technology, which involves primarily aerial activity. Even going back to World War II, we reduced Germany to nothing through bombing with conventional explosives. We could do the same to Iran. In addition, we can use drones for specific strikes against foreign leaders, such as we have done recently against terrorists. Finally, we now have intercontinental ballistic missiles, which could carry conventional mega bombs rather than nuclear warheads. All of this requires a strong military, but not for aggressive use, but rather for defensive use against our Homeland and also against a few of our "friends".
With respect to the U.S. Postal Service, I was disappointed to see that you confined your discussions with Postal Service administrators to whether service will be affected in our area. You seem to have taken the naïve approach that sense service would not be immediately affected in our area, all is rosy. This is far from the truth. Your responsibility is to see that the national postal service remains effective. The U.S. Postal Service's has self-admitted that they continue to loose money and must take steps to diminish services. Sooner or later, this is going to affect us. Randy, look at the big picture. Not just what is happening locally.
It's a nice addition for you to encourage young people to apply for appointments to military academies through you.
Randy,
I read your latest newsletter.
You are favorable to the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, but you are concerned that it it will "diminish progress we have made in the area". What progress? We are not in the business of nation building, or at least shall we say. There is no humanitarian consideration, which should not be a big factor anyhow. We have no intention of taking Iraqi oil. The only possible concern that you could have is to have troops on the ground in the vicinity of Iran to hopefully deter them from military action against Israel. That is also silly. With the advent of terrorism, we have learned some new tactics of war. Basically, you don't need troops on the ground, you demonstrate military might through technology, which involves primarily aerial activity. Even going back to World War II, we reduced Germany to nothing through bombing with conventional explosives. We could do the same to Iran. In addition, we can use drones for specific strikes against foreign leaders, such as we have done recently against terrorists. Finally, we now have intercontinental ballistic missiles, which could carry conventional mega bombs rather than nuclear warheads. All of this requires a strong military, but not for aggressive use, but rather for defensive use against our Homeland and also against a few of our "friends".
With respect to the U.S. Postal Service, I was disappointed to see that you confined your discussions with Postal Service administrators to whether service will be affected in our area. You seem to have taken the naïve approach that sense service would not be immediately affected in our area, all is rosy. This is far from the truth. Your responsibility is to see that the national postal service remains effective. The U.S. Postal Service's has self-admitted that they continue to loose money and must take steps to diminish services. Sooner or later, this is going to affect us. Randy, look at the big picture. Not just what is happening locally.
It's a nice addition for you to encourage young people to apply for appointments to military academies through you.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Get Out Of Iraq Now
Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
Randy,
In the last few days, there has been a lot of controversy on the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Hillary Clinton is talking on both sides of her face, and John McCain is bemoaning the decline of US influence.
Even the most inept person will occasionally do something right. In this case, Pres. Obama appears to have accidentally made the right decision on troop withdrawal. I will not go into the details of why we should not have been there in the first place. The present fact is that we are there now, and it costs us a bundle to maintain those troops. The Iraqis don't want our troops there, and neither do I.
McCain's reason for staying as "influence" is ridiculous. The only influence I see up to now is antagonism to our presence on the part of the Iraqis. McCain is implying a positive influence, and the only thing I see is negative. I would like to have him explain why we need to continue spending a bundle in that operation. We are not nation building. There is no humanitarianism. We apparently have no intention of using their oil.
It has been said that withdrawal of our troops in Iraq will give Iran an excellent opportunity to increase its "influence" in the Middle East. Who cares? Perhaps the Russians do. We have not heard from them.
Iran has stated its dedication to elimination of Israel. Conversely, we have stated our dedication to continue the existence of Israel. Whether we are in Iraq or not has nothing to do with it. We have military might, other than troops on the ground, that can support that position. During World War II, we bombed Germany into smithereens to support our position. That is proven technology, which is still available to us, if we maintain a strong military, which I heartily support. Moreover, in these days of improved technology, military power is not measured only by troops on the ground. With CIA and drones, we recently have shown what can be done against terrorists. The same can be accomplished against foreign government
adversaries. In addition, Intercontinental ballistic missiles are available to us. They do not have to be loaded with nuclear weapons, but can use super bombs with conventional explosives.
While it is difficult for me to say this, I strongly urge you to support Pres. Obama in the elimination of troops from Iraq,
Randy,
In the last few days, there has been a lot of controversy on the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Hillary Clinton is talking on both sides of her face, and John McCain is bemoaning the decline of US influence.
Even the most inept person will occasionally do something right. In this case, Pres. Obama appears to have accidentally made the right decision on troop withdrawal. I will not go into the details of why we should not have been there in the first place. The present fact is that we are there now, and it costs us a bundle to maintain those troops. The Iraqis don't want our troops there, and neither do I.
McCain's reason for staying as "influence" is ridiculous. The only influence I see up to now is antagonism to our presence on the part of the Iraqis. McCain is implying a positive influence, and the only thing I see is negative. I would like to have him explain why we need to continue spending a bundle in that operation. We are not nation building. There is no humanitarianism. We apparently have no intention of using their oil.
It has been said that withdrawal of our troops in Iraq will give Iran an excellent opportunity to increase its "influence" in the Middle East. Who cares? Perhaps the Russians do. We have not heard from them.
Iran has stated its dedication to elimination of Israel. Conversely, we have stated our dedication to continue the existence of Israel. Whether we are in Iraq or not has nothing to do with it. We have military might, other than troops on the ground, that can support that position. During World War II, we bombed Germany into smithereens to support our position. That is proven technology, which is still available to us, if we maintain a strong military, which I heartily support. Moreover, in these days of improved technology, military power is not measured only by troops on the ground. With CIA and drones, we recently have shown what can be done against terrorists. The same can be accomplished against foreign government
adversaries. In addition, Intercontinental ballistic missiles are available to us. They do not have to be loaded with nuclear weapons, but can use super bombs with conventional explosives.
While it is difficult for me to say this, I strongly urge you to support Pres. Obama in the elimination of troops from Iraq,
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Obama's Jobs for Veterans is a Deceptive Maneuver
Pres. Obama is now talking about jobs for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Another political ploy to pull your heartstrings and reelect a "caring" President.
There are no jobs, or least very few, and he proposes to make some. A program which has failed time and again.
Let's take a look at recent history. At the end of World War II, millions of men were suddenly out of a job of fighting a war. They had the option of reenlisting in the military or returning to civilian life. A vast majority decided on civilian life.
The government was deeply in debt from fighting a world war over several years, but it and the people felt they had an obligation to the returning servicemen. There were essentially no jobs. Jobs had been held by women in production of wartime goods and services, and those operations were then being shut down. There was a gradual transition to a civilian economy, but that would take time and meanwhile women held the available jobs.
Government decided that for the interim period while the economy was re-structuring, the returning service men would be given an opportunity to pursue education. A GI Bill was offered. It included free tuition, fees, books and a small monthly stipend for living expense. Millions of veterans took advantage of the GI Bill. Colleges and universities quickly expanded to accommodate the increased enrollment, and the stage was set for higher level employment in the transitioned economy.
The GI Bill cost substantial money to a government already deeply in debt, but the increased debt was regarded as an obligation to the veterans and an investment in the economy. It paid off. By 1953 the unemployment rate was down to 2.5%.
Have we now less obligation to returning service men from Iraq and Afghanistan? No, and we have essentially handled it with the Post 9/11 GI bill. I have looked at the available benefits, including education, and they look good to me. Check them yourself at: http://www.oefoif.va.gov/WhatCanVADoForMe.asp
What is the bottom line? It seems to me we are already taking care of our veterans in a humanitarian and economically sound manner. We are not giving them jobs, but we are giving the opportunity for jobs. This is no different than the close of World War II. But there is one big difference. At the close of World War II, the government did not hamstring itself with excessive regulations on business and general civilian give-away programs with no responsibility on the part of the recipients.
I say again, Obama is "crying wolf" for veterans jobs, when he should be considering undoing the damage he and his cronies have already done to the present economy and its future.
There are no jobs, or least very few, and he proposes to make some. A program which has failed time and again.
Let's take a look at recent history. At the end of World War II, millions of men were suddenly out of a job of fighting a war. They had the option of reenlisting in the military or returning to civilian life. A vast majority decided on civilian life.
The government was deeply in debt from fighting a world war over several years, but it and the people felt they had an obligation to the returning servicemen. There were essentially no jobs. Jobs had been held by women in production of wartime goods and services, and those operations were then being shut down. There was a gradual transition to a civilian economy, but that would take time and meanwhile women held the available jobs.
Government decided that for the interim period while the economy was re-structuring, the returning service men would be given an opportunity to pursue education. A GI Bill was offered. It included free tuition, fees, books and a small monthly stipend for living expense. Millions of veterans took advantage of the GI Bill. Colleges and universities quickly expanded to accommodate the increased enrollment, and the stage was set for higher level employment in the transitioned economy.
The GI Bill cost substantial money to a government already deeply in debt, but the increased debt was regarded as an obligation to the veterans and an investment in the economy. It paid off. By 1953 the unemployment rate was down to 2.5%.
Have we now less obligation to returning service men from Iraq and Afghanistan? No, and we have essentially handled it with the Post 9/11 GI bill. I have looked at the available benefits, including education, and they look good to me. Check them yourself at: http://www.oefoif.va.gov/WhatCanVADoForMe.asp
What is the bottom line? It seems to me we are already taking care of our veterans in a humanitarian and economically sound manner. We are not giving them jobs, but we are giving the opportunity for jobs. This is no different than the close of World War II. But there is one big difference. At the close of World War II, the government did not hamstring itself with excessive regulations on business and general civilian give-away programs with no responsibility on the part of the recipients.
I say again, Obama is "crying wolf" for veterans jobs, when he should be considering undoing the damage he and his cronies have already done to the present economy and its future.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Prayer in Schools
The subject of prayer in schools is loaded with controversy. Since public schools are generally considered a government entity, there is concern as to whether prayer should be allowed in public schools. This seems to be based on an interpretation of the Bill of Rights that government should not be involved in religion
The Bill of Rights actually says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech etc.".
This can be interpreted in various ways depending on one's emotional state or preconceived ideas. However from an objective point of view, it really says that Congress should not show partiality to a particular religion by establishing it as the official religion of the state. It also says that Congress must not prohibit people from exercising their religious rights, including public prayer.
Congress has not made a law to establish a national religion, nor has it made a law prohibiting the "exercise" of religion, Including the right to public prayer. Note that public prayer or any other form of free speech is permitted by the First Amendment, which includes this as an "Inalienable Right" not to be infringed by Congress.
Therefore, from this First Amendment right, public schools must allow Christian prayers, Buddhist prayers, Islamic prayers, and any other prayers of a religious nature, or even political discussions of any type.
However, the allowance of public prayer in schools could lead to some confusion with respect to majorities and minorities. For instance, an area where most residents are Muslims, school attendees would most likely be exposed mostly to Islamic prayers. This could be wrongly interpreted as government support of Islam. Conversely in an area where most residents are Christians, school attendees would be exposed to mostly Christian prayers and the minority groups would likely place a wrong interpretation as government support of Christianity. This presents a problem for schools, but they have an obligation to deal with it in a practical and constitutional manner. One approach could be to allow a small portion of the curriculum day to allow students of like religions to congregate and offer their prayers. Since the intention of prayer is to communicate with God, students of other religions should not be required to listen to all prayers.
Anti-religious folk have established a slogan that there should be "separation of church and state". However, it is apparent that the First Amendment does not give justification to that position. There is nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that says government must be opposed to religion in all its forms and practices. These documents merely state that Congress not must pass a law showing partiality to any particular branch of religion.
Why is it then that we have a general rule and operating procedure that public schools must not allow prayers in their confines in any form? Here we are dealing with the usual human political procedure. That is, those who squeal the loudest get what they want. The position of "No prayer in schools" can be changed, but it will involve over-squealing the anti-religious folk by other groups, such as Muslims, and Christians. There will obviously be considerable argument. The anti-religious folk will battle the Muslims and Muslims will battle the Christians. As long as it remains vocal, the situation will be within Constitutional rights and an operating procedure will be developed. If the controversy becomes physical, we have criminal laws to handle that.
Another aspect is that the controversy could eventually be referred to the US Supreme Court. The Constitution and Bill of Rights outlining permissible laws has already been covered, it is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The court could incorrectly find for the anti-religious folk and make a "rule of the land" that there would be no prayer in public school.
Because it would be law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, the public would accept. However, a subsequent Supreme Court composed of different members, could revisit the case and possibly reverse the decision.
Lastly, within the context of the First Amendment, Congress could pass a law allowing prayer in schools. In so doing, it would not be establishing a state religion, from which it is prohibited.
The Bill of Rights actually says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech etc.".
This can be interpreted in various ways depending on one's emotional state or preconceived ideas. However from an objective point of view, it really says that Congress should not show partiality to a particular religion by establishing it as the official religion of the state. It also says that Congress must not prohibit people from exercising their religious rights, including public prayer.
Congress has not made a law to establish a national religion, nor has it made a law prohibiting the "exercise" of religion, Including the right to public prayer. Note that public prayer or any other form of free speech is permitted by the First Amendment, which includes this as an "Inalienable Right" not to be infringed by Congress.
Therefore, from this First Amendment right, public schools must allow Christian prayers, Buddhist prayers, Islamic prayers, and any other prayers of a religious nature, or even political discussions of any type.
However, the allowance of public prayer in schools could lead to some confusion with respect to majorities and minorities. For instance, an area where most residents are Muslims, school attendees would most likely be exposed mostly to Islamic prayers. This could be wrongly interpreted as government support of Islam. Conversely in an area where most residents are Christians, school attendees would be exposed to mostly Christian prayers and the minority groups would likely place a wrong interpretation as government support of Christianity. This presents a problem for schools, but they have an obligation to deal with it in a practical and constitutional manner. One approach could be to allow a small portion of the curriculum day to allow students of like religions to congregate and offer their prayers. Since the intention of prayer is to communicate with God, students of other religions should not be required to listen to all prayers.
Anti-religious folk have established a slogan that there should be "separation of church and state". However, it is apparent that the First Amendment does not give justification to that position. There is nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that says government must be opposed to religion in all its forms and practices. These documents merely state that Congress not must pass a law showing partiality to any particular branch of religion.
Why is it then that we have a general rule and operating procedure that public schools must not allow prayers in their confines in any form? Here we are dealing with the usual human political procedure. That is, those who squeal the loudest get what they want. The position of "No prayer in schools" can be changed, but it will involve over-squealing the anti-religious folk by other groups, such as Muslims, and Christians. There will obviously be considerable argument. The anti-religious folk will battle the Muslims and Muslims will battle the Christians. As long as it remains vocal, the situation will be within Constitutional rights and an operating procedure will be developed. If the controversy becomes physical, we have criminal laws to handle that.
Another aspect is that the controversy could eventually be referred to the US Supreme Court. The Constitution and Bill of Rights outlining permissible laws has already been covered, it is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The court could incorrectly find for the anti-religious folk and make a "rule of the land" that there would be no prayer in public school.
Because it would be law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, the public would accept. However, a subsequent Supreme Court composed of different members, could revisit the case and possibly reverse the decision.
Lastly, within the context of the First Amendment, Congress could pass a law allowing prayer in schools. In so doing, it would not be establishing a state religion, from which it is prohibited.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
House Tries to Restrict the EPA on Unecessary Regulations
The October 3 issue of Chemical & Engineering News has an article entitled, "House Takes Aim At Clean Air Act". Author Glenn Hess shows bias in his statement that "a House passed bill would delay EPA rules aimed at reducing toxic power plant emissions". The implication is that the House of Representatives intends to subject the public to toxic materials, which is far from the truth.
Hess shows a picture of a power plant throwing off clouds of what he implies are toxic materials. If one looks carefully at the picture, one will see that at their far extremities the clouds become invisible. This is because the original clouds were a mixture of very small drops of water and air. These substances are called aerosols and are visible. As the water droplets evaporate into the air and become a gas, the clouds disappear. This is not to say that some toxic gases might not also be present, but these would not be visible. A cloud which does not disappear, always contains finely divided solid particles, which may or may not be toxic.
The Supreme Court previously supported the EPA in only considering public health when developing emission standards. The House is objecting to that definition, because the EPA unilaterally decides what is toxic and in what concentrations. The extreme case involves the EPA's designation of CO2 as a toxic gas at the level of part per million in the atmosphere.. The obvious difficulty is that the EPA may force industry to spend many billions of $ to control "toxic" materials that do not need controlling.
The House bill restricting EPA's control of industry will likely not be passed by the Senate nor by the President, but the House is demonstrating a clear understanding of the relationship between science, regulations, and business change in the economy.
Hess shows a picture of a power plant throwing off clouds of what he implies are toxic materials. If one looks carefully at the picture, one will see that at their far extremities the clouds become invisible. This is because the original clouds were a mixture of very small drops of water and air. These substances are called aerosols and are visible. As the water droplets evaporate into the air and become a gas, the clouds disappear. This is not to say that some toxic gases might not also be present, but these would not be visible. A cloud which does not disappear, always contains finely divided solid particles, which may or may not be toxic.
The Supreme Court previously supported the EPA in only considering public health when developing emission standards. The House is objecting to that definition, because the EPA unilaterally decides what is toxic and in what concentrations. The extreme case involves the EPA's designation of CO2 as a toxic gas at the level of part per million in the atmosphere.. The obvious difficulty is that the EPA may force industry to spend many billions of $ to control "toxic" materials that do not need controlling.
The House bill restricting EPA's control of industry will likely not be passed by the Senate nor by the President, but the House is demonstrating a clear understanding of the relationship between science, regulations, and business change in the economy.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Resolution to Chastise US State Department on Samir Khan Killing
Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
Randy,
Anwar al-Awlaki, a prominent leader of Al Qaeda and self-avowed terrorist was recently intentionally killed by a CIA drone in Yemen. Samir Khan was with Awlaki in the same vehicle and was collaterally killed.
Samir Khan's family later demanded an apology from the US government for Samir's killing. The US State Department gave the apology.
Note that Samir Khan was with Awlaki at the time of the killing. Samir Khan was also a self-avowed terrorist. He published an article entitled, "Proud to Be a Traitor to America". He also published an article on "How To Make a Bomb" and encouraged readers to use those bombs to kill Americans.
I want a resolution from the US House of Representatives chastising the US State Department, including Hillary Clinton, for apologizing to the family of Samir Khan.
Randy,
Anwar al-Awlaki, a prominent leader of Al Qaeda and self-avowed terrorist was recently intentionally killed by a CIA drone in Yemen. Samir Khan was with Awlaki in the same vehicle and was collaterally killed.
Samir Khan's family later demanded an apology from the US government for Samir's killing. The US State Department gave the apology.
Note that Samir Khan was with Awlaki at the time of the killing. Samir Khan was also a self-avowed terrorist. He published an article entitled, "Proud to Be a Traitor to America". He also published an article on "How To Make a Bomb" and encouraged readers to use those bombs to kill Americans.
I want a resolution from the US House of Representatives chastising the US State Department, including Hillary Clinton, for apologizing to the family of Samir Khan.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Rep. Neugebauer is Off Target
Open E-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
Dear Randy,
I read your latest newsletter. You covered three topics as follows:
1. Renaming Big Spring Veterans Medical Center.
2. Giving farmers new options for federal crop insurance.
3. Increasing awareness of breast cancer.
May I remind you that the most significant US problem, in the minds of citizens is the economy. The associated aspects are high unemployment, the federal budget completely out of balance, and mounting national debt. Some of us believe that this situation is intentionally caused by Pres. Obama in his pursuit of global redistribution of wealth. We also believe that anyone's first objective would be to take care of himself before concern and action to citizens of other countries.
With all due respect, do you feel that your attention to the three points listed above is justified, in view of the fact that "Rome is burning"?
Dear Randy,
I read your latest newsletter. You covered three topics as follows:
1. Renaming Big Spring Veterans Medical Center.
2. Giving farmers new options for federal crop insurance.
3. Increasing awareness of breast cancer.
May I remind you that the most significant US problem, in the minds of citizens is the economy. The associated aspects are high unemployment, the federal budget completely out of balance, and mounting national debt. Some of us believe that this situation is intentionally caused by Pres. Obama in his pursuit of global redistribution of wealth. We also believe that anyone's first objective would be to take care of himself before concern and action to citizens of other countries.
With all due respect, do you feel that your attention to the three points listed above is justified, in view of the fact that "Rome is burning"?
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Pres. Obama's Seven Useless Technology Transfer Proposals
In the September 26 issue of C&E News, there is an article entitled, "Moving from Lab to Market". It covers Pres. Obama's proposed seven initiatives on technology transfer to encourage commercialization.
Having spent several years as a Technology Transfer Manager for a major corporation, I feel qualified to write on the subject. I will cover each of the seven initiatives individually.
1. Pres. Obama wants to establish a partnership between the National Institute of Health, Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, and the Federal Drug Administration to develop a chip, which will quickly screen drugs for toxicity and effectiveness.
This is a ridiculous proposal. Note also that is not a technology transfer matter, since there is no technology yet to be transferred. It is only a matter of enlarging government into another research field. It is not the prerogative of government to do such research. It's an area for private industry. Drug companies and their associations can do this without any government intervention.
2. Obama proposes startup companies to license more easily technology patented by government agencies.
I completely agree with this but also with an extension. Patents owned by the federal government should be licensed to individuals and corporations without charge and with the most convenience.
3. Obama proposes that the US Patent and Trademark Office, the National Science Foundation Small Business Administration provide support, meaning many free services, to persons already receiving grants for research at universities.
This is a ridiculous proposal. Individuals should not be receiving government grants in the first place. Most of those research projects are completely impractical and this would be pouring money down the existing rat hole.
4. Obama is proposing a University Commercialization Prize. The National Science Foundation is involved, which means funding. Early talk is about $400,000.
Any research that universities have developed and which could be commercialized would normally be done to the advantage of the University, without the necessity of any half million dollar prize. This is only another attempt to push taxpayers money into the universities in order to obtain government control.
5. Obama proposes building stronger ties between academia and industry, investors, and federal agencies.
This is another ridiculous proposal, because it is not necessary. Academia and industry are already well connected and government should not even be involved. Anything that is supposedly offered free of charge by government is a cost the taxpayers.
6. Obama wants to add four universities to the Coulter Foundation's Translational Research Partnership Program.
Translational research is an attempt to develop processes for removing barriers to multi-disciplinary collaboration. This is a wonderful leftist idea, which has no practical significance. A good manager knows how to remove obstacles. One of the best ways is to eliminate involvement of government.
7. This is a proposal to harness biological research innovation to address national challenges in health, food, energy, and the environment.
Another boondoggle operation. It is pie-in-the-sky, because these completely non-definitive. It only makes sense as one considers that it supports Pres. Obama's position of increasing the role of government in our lives, without any benefit for employment and the general economy.
Having spent several years as a Technology Transfer Manager for a major corporation, I feel qualified to write on the subject. I will cover each of the seven initiatives individually.
1. Pres. Obama wants to establish a partnership between the National Institute of Health, Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, and the Federal Drug Administration to develop a chip, which will quickly screen drugs for toxicity and effectiveness.
This is a ridiculous proposal. Note also that is not a technology transfer matter, since there is no technology yet to be transferred. It is only a matter of enlarging government into another research field. It is not the prerogative of government to do such research. It's an area for private industry. Drug companies and their associations can do this without any government intervention.
2. Obama proposes startup companies to license more easily technology patented by government agencies.
I completely agree with this but also with an extension. Patents owned by the federal government should be licensed to individuals and corporations without charge and with the most convenience.
3. Obama proposes that the US Patent and Trademark Office, the National Science Foundation Small Business Administration provide support, meaning many free services, to persons already receiving grants for research at universities.
This is a ridiculous proposal. Individuals should not be receiving government grants in the first place. Most of those research projects are completely impractical and this would be pouring money down the existing rat hole.
4. Obama is proposing a University Commercialization Prize. The National Science Foundation is involved, which means funding. Early talk is about $400,000.
Any research that universities have developed and which could be commercialized would normally be done to the advantage of the University, without the necessity of any half million dollar prize. This is only another attempt to push taxpayers money into the universities in order to obtain government control.
5. Obama proposes building stronger ties between academia and industry, investors, and federal agencies.
This is another ridiculous proposal, because it is not necessary. Academia and industry are already well connected and government should not even be involved. Anything that is supposedly offered free of charge by government is a cost the taxpayers.
6. Obama wants to add four universities to the Coulter Foundation's Translational Research Partnership Program.
Translational research is an attempt to develop processes for removing barriers to multi-disciplinary collaboration. This is a wonderful leftist idea, which has no practical significance. A good manager knows how to remove obstacles. One of the best ways is to eliminate involvement of government.
7. This is a proposal to harness biological research innovation to address national challenges in health, food, energy, and the environment.
Another boondoggle operation. It is pie-in-the-sky, because these completely non-definitive. It only makes sense as one considers that it supports Pres. Obama's position of increasing the role of government in our lives, without any benefit for employment and the general economy.
Kill Free-Trade As an Obama Agent to Redistribute Your Wealth
Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
Randy,
An article in the September 26 issue of C&E News concerns free-trade deals and Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA).
Let's start by saying that we should scrap the whole idea of free trade. It is free trade, which has partially gotten us into the economic mess we are in.
Wages in the United States are considered about the highest in the world. For that reason, many manufacturers have gone overseas, with a resultant loss of US manufacturing jobs. We have become a service economy. In order to regain our economic power, we not only need a service economy but also internal manufacturing.
The way to do this is to scrap free-trade and apply custom duties to all manufactured goods coming into the states in order to equalize foreign and US labor costs.
The alternative is to continue the route which we are still embarked on, which means shipping jobs overseas. It is only for that reason that Trade Adjustment Assistance was considered. It means providing health and employment benefits and retraining workers at high and unnecessary government expense for workers who lost jobs because of foreign competition .
The existing free trade policy is exactly what Pres. Obama has been advocating to redistribute wealth on a global basis. As magnanimous as that sounds, we are not in position to do this anymore. In spite of recent degradation in our economic system and GDP, we still have one of the highest standards of living in the world. We want to preserve what we still have left and not be forced to distribute our wealth among other countries of the world by government edict. Other countries can lift themselves by their own bootstraps, as we have previously done.
I find it interesting to be on the same side as the a AFL/CIO, deputy who says "This is the wrong time to put at risk good jobs in our manufacturing sector".
Advocates of free trade will immediately point out a reciprocity issue. They will claim that as we impose import duties, other countries will do the same, which will then work against US exports. I say let them do so, it will be to their own disadvantage, because there are many areas where the US has superiority in production. Let foreign governments explain to their people why they are imposing in import duty on US produced wheat.
I strongly encourage you to do everything possible to defeat ratification of the three free-trade agreements which will be considered by the House in the next few weeks.
Randy,
An article in the September 26 issue of C&E News concerns free-trade deals and Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA).
Let's start by saying that we should scrap the whole idea of free trade. It is free trade, which has partially gotten us into the economic mess we are in.
Wages in the United States are considered about the highest in the world. For that reason, many manufacturers have gone overseas, with a resultant loss of US manufacturing jobs. We have become a service economy. In order to regain our economic power, we not only need a service economy but also internal manufacturing.
The way to do this is to scrap free-trade and apply custom duties to all manufactured goods coming into the states in order to equalize foreign and US labor costs.
The alternative is to continue the route which we are still embarked on, which means shipping jobs overseas. It is only for that reason that Trade Adjustment Assistance was considered. It means providing health and employment benefits and retraining workers at high and unnecessary government expense for workers who lost jobs because of foreign competition .
The existing free trade policy is exactly what Pres. Obama has been advocating to redistribute wealth on a global basis. As magnanimous as that sounds, we are not in position to do this anymore. In spite of recent degradation in our economic system and GDP, we still have one of the highest standards of living in the world. We want to preserve what we still have left and not be forced to distribute our wealth among other countries of the world by government edict. Other countries can lift themselves by their own bootstraps, as we have previously done.
I find it interesting to be on the same side as the a AFL/CIO, deputy who says "This is the wrong time to put at risk good jobs in our manufacturing sector".
Advocates of free trade will immediately point out a reciprocity issue. They will claim that as we impose import duties, other countries will do the same, which will then work against US exports. I say let them do so, it will be to their own disadvantage, because there are many areas where the US has superiority in production. Let foreign governments explain to their people why they are imposing in import duty on US produced wheat.
I strongly encourage you to do everything possible to defeat ratification of the three free-trade agreements which will be considered by the House in the next few weeks.
Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
Randy,
I saw the poll results on the 13 national issues, which you considered might be of interest to constituents. You were correct. They are interested in all 13, but the real question is their relative importance and whether you should be doing anything about them.
I am commenting on each of them as follows:
Agriculture Our main interest is to stabilize the cultural prices, keep farmers in the business, and avoid famine. Spend median time.
Border Security We need to keep out terrorists and illegal immigrants looking for opportunity. Spend median time and concentrate on technology rather than fence building
Economy This is the big one. We need to wean the public from an entitlement attitude. Spend lots of time in discrediting the fascist liberals and promoting capitalism
Education Another big one, but but should not take a lot of time. Just quickly closed down the Department of Education.
Energy Another big one. But also should not take a lot of time. Get off the tickets to sustainable energy and promote gas and oil drilling. Kill any talk of taxing CO2 emissions.
Family Values & Pro-Life Important but not big, and you can't do much about it. Minimal time.
Federal Deficit Very important and worth a lot of time ferreting out government waste. However, I have mentioned the big ones of shutting down the Departments of Education And Energy. Get rid of all government grants, loan guarantees, in a promotion by government agencies. Product and process development belong to the private sphere and should be sold by private corporations.
Financial Services & Banking Very important. Put in some time restricting banks to traditional lending operations. Get rid of the quasi government organizations such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. We organized the Federal Reserve to a National Bank under the control of Congress.
Government Spending Same as reducing deficit. Spend some time in closing down agencies and departments.
Health Care Repeal Obama Care. Spend some time convincing the American public that healthcare is the responsibility of the individual. Make individuals pay at least 50% of all medical expenses. When they can't afford it, have them get the money from their families or borrow it.
Immigration Establish a massive illegal immigration camp. All illegal immigrants without proper documentation should be confined to the camp until they are returned to their native countries.
National Debt Spent very little time on the national. It's important, but it will automatically be controlled as you control government spending and the federal deficit
National Security & the Global War on Terror Ensure national security by completing the Star Wars program did not ban any nuclear device carrying missiles while they are still in outer space. Remove traditional armies from the Middle East and the borders of other questionable countries to concentrate more on the use of high-technology surveillance combined with improved CIA ground data. Spend minimal time but give it an expense priority
Post Office Issues spend minimal time to appoint a director who knows how to make a service operation profitable. Chances are he will increase rates for junk mail and other solicitors as to discourage their use. The ancillary advantages is that the public will be saved the inconvenience of handling this junk
Science & Technology Spend a fair amount of time in eliminating research and development from federal agencies and departments. Technological development should come from the private sector and from universities, without any involvement of government. Government patents should be licensed free to any individuals or corporations desiring a license.
Second Amendment Rights Support Second Amendment rights using as much time as necessary. Guns must be in the hands of the general public so that it can protect itself against the government.
Small Business Spend little time on this, because there's nothing to do. Small business should promote itself in an environment where government is generally pro-business, which means a minimum of restrictive regulations, including taxes
Social Security Spend minimum time on modifying Social Security so that payments begin at receivers later ages, in conformity with our increased lifecycles. Consider general reductions in payments, with recommendations that individuals should be setting aside their own retirements through private financial institutions.
Trade Spend a reasonable amount of time in getting rid of "free trade". Regulate imports by applying import customs duties to partially protect local manufacturing and service industries. Have no concern of reciprocal trade restrictions on our exports. For example, countries who wish to apply a custom duty on wheat from the United States are welcome to do so with subsequent explanation to their citizens.
Transportation Spend a reasonable amount of time in killing off all government programs involving the transportation industry. It is not government's responsibility to decide whether we should have electric cars. If the people want to continue with internal combustion engines, government should not stand in the way. Do not spend government money on mass transportation. There's enough private industry capital to do that in cases where is justifiable.
Veterans' Affairs Spend very little time on this. Good veteran should have proper hospitalization and medical care, with appropriate retirement benefits they should also be allowed some paid access to university training, if they leave the services during their normal working ages, in order to better adapt to society.
Randy,
I saw the poll results on the 13 national issues, which you considered might be of interest to constituents. You were correct. They are interested in all 13, but the real question is their relative importance and whether you should be doing anything about them.
I am commenting on each of them as follows:
Agriculture Our main interest is to stabilize the cultural prices, keep farmers in the business, and avoid famine. Spend median time.
Border Security We need to keep out terrorists and illegal immigrants looking for opportunity. Spend median time and concentrate on technology rather than fence building
Economy This is the big one. We need to wean the public from an entitlement attitude. Spend lots of time in discrediting the fascist liberals and promoting capitalism
Education Another big one, but but should not take a lot of time. Just quickly closed down the Department of Education.
Energy Another big one. But also should not take a lot of time. Get off the tickets to sustainable energy and promote gas and oil drilling. Kill any talk of taxing CO2 emissions.
Family Values & Pro-Life Important but not big, and you can't do much about it. Minimal time.
Federal Deficit Very important and worth a lot of time ferreting out government waste. However, I have mentioned the big ones of shutting down the Departments of Education And Energy. Get rid of all government grants, loan guarantees, in a promotion by government agencies. Product and process development belong to the private sphere and should be sold by private corporations.
Financial Services & Banking Very important. Put in some time restricting banks to traditional lending operations. Get rid of the quasi government organizations such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. We organized the Federal Reserve to a National Bank under the control of Congress.
Government Spending Same as reducing deficit. Spend some time in closing down agencies and departments.
Health Care Repeal Obama Care. Spend some time convincing the American public that healthcare is the responsibility of the individual. Make individuals pay at least 50% of all medical expenses. When they can't afford it, have them get the money from their families or borrow it.
Immigration Establish a massive illegal immigration camp. All illegal immigrants without proper documentation should be confined to the camp until they are returned to their native countries.
National Debt Spent very little time on the national. It's important, but it will automatically be controlled as you control government spending and the federal deficit
National Security & the Global War on Terror Ensure national security by completing the Star Wars program did not ban any nuclear device carrying missiles while they are still in outer space. Remove traditional armies from the Middle East and the borders of other questionable countries to concentrate more on the use of high-technology surveillance combined with improved CIA ground data. Spend minimal time but give it an expense priority
Post Office Issues spend minimal time to appoint a director who knows how to make a service operation profitable. Chances are he will increase rates for junk mail and other solicitors as to discourage their use. The ancillary advantages is that the public will be saved the inconvenience of handling this junk
Science & Technology Spend a fair amount of time in eliminating research and development from federal agencies and departments. Technological development should come from the private sector and from universities, without any involvement of government. Government patents should be licensed free to any individuals or corporations desiring a license.
Second Amendment Rights Support Second Amendment rights using as much time as necessary. Guns must be in the hands of the general public so that it can protect itself against the government.
Small Business Spend little time on this, because there's nothing to do. Small business should promote itself in an environment where government is generally pro-business, which means a minimum of restrictive regulations, including taxes
Social Security Spend minimum time on modifying Social Security so that payments begin at receivers later ages, in conformity with our increased lifecycles. Consider general reductions in payments, with recommendations that individuals should be setting aside their own retirements through private financial institutions.
Trade Spend a reasonable amount of time in getting rid of "free trade". Regulate imports by applying import customs duties to partially protect local manufacturing and service industries. Have no concern of reciprocal trade restrictions on our exports. For example, countries who wish to apply a custom duty on wheat from the United States are welcome to do so with subsequent explanation to their citizens.
Transportation Spend a reasonable amount of time in killing off all government programs involving the transportation industry. It is not government's responsibility to decide whether we should have electric cars. If the people want to continue with internal combustion engines, government should not stand in the way. Do not spend government money on mass transportation. There's enough private industry capital to do that in cases where is justifiable.
Veterans' Affairs Spend very little time on this. Good veteran should have proper hospitalization and medical care, with appropriate retirement benefits they should also be allowed some paid access to university training, if they leave the services during their normal working ages, in order to better adapt to society.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Rep. Neugebauer on Afghanistan, IED's, EPA, and Banks
Open E-Mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
Randy,
Here are just a few comments on your latest newsletter.
Our Afghanistan troops are undoubtedly the best in the world, but they shouldn't be there. We are not in the business of nation building. There is no need for ground forces to eliminate terrorist activities as a threat to the US mainland. And, I'm glad to see you are talking with the Ambassador and General about the troop draw down. The sooner the draw down the better.
My heart bleeds for our troops who have been disabled by improvised explosive devices (IED's). This is a special shame, because it is so unnecessary. A little concentration on how to control these IED's through technology involving premature explosion or identification would have saved a tremendous amount of heartache and expense in rehabilitating the disabled. Don't tell me that this isn't a solvable problem. It is. We have tremendous technical capability and while it has not been duck soup, it could've been accomplished several years ago.
I am pleased to see that the House is considering two bills involving EPA limitations on mercury and other pollutants from cement plants and industrial boilers.
Mercury is not a hazard and should never have been considered as such. Mercury is released to the atmosphere primarily through the burning of coal, of which mercury is a minor contaminant. The atmospheric mercury eventually lands back into the soil from which it came, and where it caused no harm. A very small amount falls into swampy areas, where biological process involving microorganisms convert the elemental mercury to methylmercury. Methylmercury is toxic and is at the very low concentrations in swampy areas. The fact that swamps are not usually inhabited by human beings makes the health problem of minor or no significance.
With respect to "other pollutants", and since they cannot be specifically named, they must not be important, and we can quickly dispose of that.
I also need to comment on your new Question of the Week. You asked whether Bank of America's five-dollar fee for using a debit card would expand to other banks and the answer was a resounding "yes". My comment does not involve the "yes", but questions whether you as a member of Congress should have even raised the subject.
Let's have a quick rundown of what the banking business is all about. We need a medium of exchange for ease of negotiations in exchanges of goods and services. Hence, the development of the currency system. Government is best able to do this, and we have the Federal Reserve to establish a currency base by printing money. Banks have charters and because of their charters, they are able to borrow from the Federal Reserve at a low interest rate. They then use the borrowed money to lend to other borrowers at a retail level and at a higher interest rate. The difference between the interest rate they pay the Federal Reserve and the interest rate they collect from retail borrowers is the primary source of revenue from which they pay their rent, employees, and hopefully make a profit for the owners who originally put their money into establishing the bank. In addition, banks perform other services, for which they usually charge fees. Some services may not involve separate fees and are built into their general expense. The result is the same. Banks need to make a profit to stay afloat.
My question to you is why you and presumably other members of Congress even look at bank fees as a source of revenue. There's nothing wrong with them. There are many banks in competition. Let them work out their own fee schedules. If on the other hand, we see a number of banks going out of business, because the spread in borrowing and lending interest rates is too low, then you may want to do something with respect to the Federal Reserve.
Randy,
Here are just a few comments on your latest newsletter.
Our Afghanistan troops are undoubtedly the best in the world, but they shouldn't be there. We are not in the business of nation building. There is no need for ground forces to eliminate terrorist activities as a threat to the US mainland. And, I'm glad to see you are talking with the Ambassador and General about the troop draw down. The sooner the draw down the better.
My heart bleeds for our troops who have been disabled by improvised explosive devices (IED's). This is a special shame, because it is so unnecessary. A little concentration on how to control these IED's through technology involving premature explosion or identification would have saved a tremendous amount of heartache and expense in rehabilitating the disabled. Don't tell me that this isn't a solvable problem. It is. We have tremendous technical capability and while it has not been duck soup, it could've been accomplished several years ago.
I am pleased to see that the House is considering two bills involving EPA limitations on mercury and other pollutants from cement plants and industrial boilers.
Mercury is not a hazard and should never have been considered as such. Mercury is released to the atmosphere primarily through the burning of coal, of which mercury is a minor contaminant. The atmospheric mercury eventually lands back into the soil from which it came, and where it caused no harm. A very small amount falls into swampy areas, where biological process involving microorganisms convert the elemental mercury to methylmercury. Methylmercury is toxic and is at the very low concentrations in swampy areas. The fact that swamps are not usually inhabited by human beings makes the health problem of minor or no significance.
With respect to "other pollutants", and since they cannot be specifically named, they must not be important, and we can quickly dispose of that.
I also need to comment on your new Question of the Week. You asked whether Bank of America's five-dollar fee for using a debit card would expand to other banks and the answer was a resounding "yes". My comment does not involve the "yes", but questions whether you as a member of Congress should have even raised the subject.
Let's have a quick rundown of what the banking business is all about. We need a medium of exchange for ease of negotiations in exchanges of goods and services. Hence, the development of the currency system. Government is best able to do this, and we have the Federal Reserve to establish a currency base by printing money. Banks have charters and because of their charters, they are able to borrow from the Federal Reserve at a low interest rate. They then use the borrowed money to lend to other borrowers at a retail level and at a higher interest rate. The difference between the interest rate they pay the Federal Reserve and the interest rate they collect from retail borrowers is the primary source of revenue from which they pay their rent, employees, and hopefully make a profit for the owners who originally put their money into establishing the bank. In addition, banks perform other services, for which they usually charge fees. Some services may not involve separate fees and are built into their general expense. The result is the same. Banks need to make a profit to stay afloat.
My question to you is why you and presumably other members of Congress even look at bank fees as a source of revenue. There's nothing wrong with them. There are many banks in competition. Let them work out their own fee schedules. If on the other hand, we see a number of banks going out of business, because the spread in borrowing and lending interest rates is too low, then you may want to do something with respect to the Federal Reserve.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
American Chemical Society Mostly on Right Track in Promoting Entrepreneurship
In the September issue of Chemical and Engineering News, there is an article, "Creating Jobs for Chemists" by Rudy Baum, the socialistic editor-in-chief of C&E News.
Rudy reports that a Presidential Task Force of the American Chemical Society addressed the problem of employment. They concluded that as many as 100,000 new jobs for chemists could be created in the next 20 years by primarily helping entrepreneurs.
The Task Force suggested the following four action points for the ACS.
1. Give financial support to entrepreneurs.
2. Pressure government to improve the business environment for entrepreneurs and startup companies.
3. Promote entrepreneurship with academic institutions.
4. Promote public awareness of the value of early-stage entrepreneurship and chemical enterprises.
With Rudy Baum's leftist philosophy, he must have found it difficult to write this article, because it advocates entrepreneurship while he is a believer in government operations. However, he works for the ACS and as the ACS Administration outlined these requirements, Rudy must conform if he wants to hold his job.
I personally like three of the four points, providing they are not overdone. I'm opposed to any financial ACS help to entrepreneurs, because it smacks of socialism. Members and advertisers will be paying the cost, whether they like it or not.
The other three promotions must be kept within bounds. C&E News is a magazine which is intended for such promotion. However, if the ACS plans a major advertising campaign outside its traditional house organ (C&E News), I am against it.
Rudy reports that a Presidential Task Force of the American Chemical Society addressed the problem of employment. They concluded that as many as 100,000 new jobs for chemists could be created in the next 20 years by primarily helping entrepreneurs.
The Task Force suggested the following four action points for the ACS.
1. Give financial support to entrepreneurs.
2. Pressure government to improve the business environment for entrepreneurs and startup companies.
3. Promote entrepreneurship with academic institutions.
4. Promote public awareness of the value of early-stage entrepreneurship and chemical enterprises.
With Rudy Baum's leftist philosophy, he must have found it difficult to write this article, because it advocates entrepreneurship while he is a believer in government operations. However, he works for the ACS and as the ACS Administration outlined these requirements, Rudy must conform if he wants to hold his job.
I personally like three of the four points, providing they are not overdone. I'm opposed to any financial ACS help to entrepreneurs, because it smacks of socialism. Members and advertisers will be paying the cost, whether they like it or not.
The other three promotions must be kept within bounds. C&E News is a magazine which is intended for such promotion. However, if the ACS plans a major advertising campaign outside its traditional house organ (C&E News), I am against it.
Hooray for Rep. Cantor Opposing 10 New Environmental Regulations
The September 5 issue of Chemical and Engineering News has an interesting article entitled, "Politics: House Republicans Plan to Continue Anti-Regulation Push".
There are two aspects.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor singled out 10 proposed environmental labor and health regulations, which he promised to block! It's not that some of these intended environmental regulations would not be helpful in some aspects, but the main point is that we can't afford them.
The second aspect is that it is claimed political studies show that conformity to these regulations would be job neutral or positive. Looking at spending of paper mills, plastic manufacturers, petroleum refineries and steel mills, researchers at an environmental group found that meeting environmental regulations is labor-intensive resulting in a net gain of 1.5 to 6.9 jobs per $1 million primarily for air pollution reductions.
This is a ridiculous set of numbers to even present, because it is obvious that in the spending of $1 million by any of these 90 factoring companies, they have to recoup those expenses by increasing the prices of their products, which then makes them noncompetitive on a worldwide basis.Sooner or later they will be out of business.
In a fictitious analogy, I just bought 100-pound pack of sophisticated air quality measuring devices for my woodworking plant. I spent $50,000, and I have to carry it around on my back. I think we're improving the air quality, but I have to increase the price of my products so that I can recoup the $50,000, and I am also so tired from carrying around the equipment that I can't really get any production.
There are two aspects.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor singled out 10 proposed environmental labor and health regulations, which he promised to block! It's not that some of these intended environmental regulations would not be helpful in some aspects, but the main point is that we can't afford them.
The second aspect is that it is claimed political studies show that conformity to these regulations would be job neutral or positive. Looking at spending of paper mills, plastic manufacturers, petroleum refineries and steel mills, researchers at an environmental group found that meeting environmental regulations is labor-intensive resulting in a net gain of 1.5 to 6.9 jobs per $1 million primarily for air pollution reductions.
This is a ridiculous set of numbers to even present, because it is obvious that in the spending of $1 million by any of these 90 factoring companies, they have to recoup those expenses by increasing the prices of their products, which then makes them noncompetitive on a worldwide basis.Sooner or later they will be out of business.
In a fictitious analogy, I just bought 100-pound pack of sophisticated air quality measuring devices for my woodworking plant. I spent $50,000, and I have to carry it around on my back. I think we're improving the air quality, but I have to increase the price of my products so that I can recoup the $50,000, and I am also so tired from carrying around the equipment that I can't really get any production.
Hooray for the CIA in Awlaki Elimination!
EIN News says, "Al-Qaeda Cleric Awlaki Killed in Missile Strike, Yemen Says. Anwar al-Awlaki, the extremist al-Qaeda imam and an American citizen was killed in an assassination strike by U.S. missile-firing drones operating over strife-torn Yemen, according to Yemeni officials. (theglobeandmail.com)".
Any bleeding hearts or extreme advocates of personal liberty around?
Forget it! He was an outlaw and an enemy of the country in which he was a citizen. Hooray for the CIA! Wonderful to have them do something right.
Any bleeding hearts or extreme advocates of personal liberty around?
Forget it! He was an outlaw and an enemy of the country in which he was a citizen. Hooray for the CIA! Wonderful to have them do something right.
Russian Poverty Compared to the US
EIN News says, "Russians Living in Poverty 'Up by 2 Million Since 2010' The number of people in Russia living below the poverty line has grown by about two million in the first six months of 2011, new figures released by the state statistics service said. (france24.com)".
I thought we might take a look at how Russian poverty compares with US poverty.
With the 2 million increase in Russia, the stated poverty level is 15%. The poverty level in the United States is also 15%. These levels are based on poverty levels, which are different in the two countries.
For a family of four in each of the two countries, the Russian poverty level is $9800 per year, while the US poverty level is $22,100 per year.
We don't have much detail on what goes into the Russian poverty level calculation, but in the US, public housing, Medicaid, employee healthcare, and food stamps are not considered in the poverty level. In other words, the American family of four may still have a real income above $22,100 and be considered below the poverty level.
A quick attempt to equalize the percentage poverty level for the two countries gives the stated level of 15% for the US. The calculated value for Russia on the same basis would be about 34%.
Americans seem to be pretty well-off economically compared to Russians. Consider also that 80% of four-member families in Bangladesh live below the international poverty level of $2700 per year.
Does that pull your heartstrings? It shouldn't. Those people have developed their own civilization, which likely is not based on monetary considerations, and they seem happy with it. It is not up to us to judge their degree of unhappiness based upon figures such as above. I am personally unhappy with the fact that 15% of Americans receive public housing, Medicaid, employee healthcare and food stamps, when they have an opportunity to supply for themselves in this great land.
I thought we might take a look at how Russian poverty compares with US poverty.
With the 2 million increase in Russia, the stated poverty level is 15%. The poverty level in the United States is also 15%. These levels are based on poverty levels, which are different in the two countries.
For a family of four in each of the two countries, the Russian poverty level is $9800 per year, while the US poverty level is $22,100 per year.
We don't have much detail on what goes into the Russian poverty level calculation, but in the US, public housing, Medicaid, employee healthcare, and food stamps are not considered in the poverty level. In other words, the American family of four may still have a real income above $22,100 and be considered below the poverty level.
A quick attempt to equalize the percentage poverty level for the two countries gives the stated level of 15% for the US. The calculated value for Russia on the same basis would be about 34%.
Americans seem to be pretty well-off economically compared to Russians. Consider also that 80% of four-member families in Bangladesh live below the international poverty level of $2700 per year.
Does that pull your heartstrings? It shouldn't. Those people have developed their own civilization, which likely is not based on monetary considerations, and they seem happy with it. It is not up to us to judge their degree of unhappiness based upon figures such as above. I am personally unhappy with the fact that 15% of Americans receive public housing, Medicaid, employee healthcare and food stamps, when they have an opportunity to supply for themselves in this great land.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
