The American Chemical Society has finally done something right!
According to an article by Susan Ainsworth in the March 31 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, the ACS Board of Directors started a pilot program approximately 2 years ago as the American Chemical Society's Entrepreneurial Initiative. The Entrepreneurial Initiative (EI) was intended to support ACS members who would like to pursue starting and operating their own businesses. The ACS Board has since decided to revamp and optimize EI for another two years.
The program gives aspiring entrepreneurs help in preparing business plans, market research, identifying customers, contacts for advice, and sources of private capital and potential commercial partners. In addition, it sponsors a showcase fair, where aspiring entrepreneurs can pitch their business plans to investors and commercial partners.
Susan Ainsworth's article contains anecdotes of several companies which have been successfully developed under the program.
The key point is that ACS management is performing a service to its members and in such a way as to avoid its standard approach to members obtaining federal taxpayer money through Federal Agency grants.
Monday, April 14, 2014
Saturday, April 12, 2014
Comments on American Chemical Society Position Statements
Open Email to American Chemical Society Management and Chemical and Engineering News Editorial and News Staff:
Dear Editorial and News Staff,
Your March 10 article In C&EN by Linda Wang, is entitled, "ACS Amends Policy Positions". The article asks readers to contribute their thoughts.
Most of the Position Statements are relatively innocuous and generally consistent with good science, but a few tip the ACS management's hand in its efforts to exert political control. This is further accentuated in many of the subsequent articles published in each issue of C&EN.
For example, the ACS Position Statement on Energy says, "Urges policymakers to lead in formulating a comprehensive forward thinking and sustainable energy policy that addresses the needs of the four US energy sectors by weighing national security, economic and environmental impacts." I can agree with that, but C&EN issue after issue continues to pound that the use of fossil fuels is bad because of supposed disastrous climate change effects, when there is no significant scientific basis for a connection between carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere and climate change. Instead, issue after issue continues to promote expensive green energy, which I agree will have its place in certain instances, but cannot be considered in the same context that C&EN continues to promote it.
With Respect to US Business Climate, the Position Statement says, "Supports policies that will make US firms more entrepreneurial and internationally competitive." That also is well said but in subsequent interpretation in various C&EN issues, you continually promote government involvement using taxpayer money on programs which in many cases are disadvantageous to the entrepreneurial development of American industry, if it had been left to do the job without government interference.
On Health Care, the Position Statement says, "Supports access to affordable quality healthcare for all Americans and sets out broad principles intended to guide policy on current healthcare options". The Position Statement itself tends to lean toward a socialistic operation, which is political, and should not be involved in a semi-scientific magazine.
On Teaching of Evolution, the position statement says, "Supports teaching of evolution; opposes alternative nonscientific theories and urges states and localities to support high-quality science standards and curricula." At least the first part of the statement involves philosophical opinions which basically are unanswerable by science. It is clearly implied that the ACS opposes "alternative nonscientific theories", by which it is obvious that it means Biblical reference. It seems to me that this has no basis for consideration by a chemical society organization. However I do agree with the last part of the statement, which involves supporting high-quality science standards and curricula. It is obviously advantageous to the American public to know more about the science of chemistry, providing it is not tainted by political innuendo.
There are many others in the list, which would fall into the same category as those mentioned above. However, to be fair there are a few, such as Endocrine Disruption, which "Endorses expanded education and research as well as the development of more effective methods to reduce the release of endocrine disruptor's into the environment and to limit human exposure."
In total, I encourage the American Chemical Society Management to stick with the science and business of chemistry in C&EN and refrain from political involvement, such as promoting federal grants on the theory that it helps the science of chemistry and the fact that the additional money is helpful to many American Society members.
Dear Editorial and News Staff,
Your March 10 article In C&EN by Linda Wang, is entitled, "ACS Amends Policy Positions". The article asks readers to contribute their thoughts.
Most of the Position Statements are relatively innocuous and generally consistent with good science, but a few tip the ACS management's hand in its efforts to exert political control. This is further accentuated in many of the subsequent articles published in each issue of C&EN.
For example, the ACS Position Statement on Energy says, "Urges policymakers to lead in formulating a comprehensive forward thinking and sustainable energy policy that addresses the needs of the four US energy sectors by weighing national security, economic and environmental impacts." I can agree with that, but C&EN issue after issue continues to pound that the use of fossil fuels is bad because of supposed disastrous climate change effects, when there is no significant scientific basis for a connection between carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere and climate change. Instead, issue after issue continues to promote expensive green energy, which I agree will have its place in certain instances, but cannot be considered in the same context that C&EN continues to promote it.
With Respect to US Business Climate, the Position Statement says, "Supports policies that will make US firms more entrepreneurial and internationally competitive." That also is well said but in subsequent interpretation in various C&EN issues, you continually promote government involvement using taxpayer money on programs which in many cases are disadvantageous to the entrepreneurial development of American industry, if it had been left to do the job without government interference.
On Health Care, the Position Statement says, "Supports access to affordable quality healthcare for all Americans and sets out broad principles intended to guide policy on current healthcare options". The Position Statement itself tends to lean toward a socialistic operation, which is political, and should not be involved in a semi-scientific magazine.
On Teaching of Evolution, the position statement says, "Supports teaching of evolution; opposes alternative nonscientific theories and urges states and localities to support high-quality science standards and curricula." At least the first part of the statement involves philosophical opinions which basically are unanswerable by science. It is clearly implied that the ACS opposes "alternative nonscientific theories", by which it is obvious that it means Biblical reference. It seems to me that this has no basis for consideration by a chemical society organization. However I do agree with the last part of the statement, which involves supporting high-quality science standards and curricula. It is obviously advantageous to the American public to know more about the science of chemistry, providing it is not tainted by political innuendo.
There are many others in the list, which would fall into the same category as those mentioned above. However, to be fair there are a few, such as Endocrine Disruption, which "Endorses expanded education and research as well as the development of more effective methods to reduce the release of endocrine disruptor's into the environment and to limit human exposure."
In total, I encourage the American Chemical Society Management to stick with the science and business of chemistry in C&EN and refrain from political involvement, such as promoting federal grants on the theory that it helps the science of chemistry and the fact that the additional money is helpful to many American Society members.
Endangered Species Act
Open Email to Congress:
Dear Representatives and Senators,
First it was the snail darter. This was followed by the spotted owl, the prairie chicken, and now the tortoise.
What do these animals have in common? They are a problem outgrowth of the Endangered Species Act, passed by Congress in 1973. Assuming that Congress had the preservation of the species at heart, they botched the job of setting up an appropriate law. As it now exists, the Endangered Species Act allows government to confiscate property rights on private land. The present contest between government's confiscation of cattle and the cattlemen in Nevada is the latest example. The issue is not whether the cattlemen have paid their grazing rights for grazing on government property. The issue is whether cattlemen can graze their cattle on their own land. The government says "no", because such grazing would interfere with the continued existence of local tortoise.
I personally don't care whether the snail darter, spotted owl, prairie chicken and tortoise continue to exist as part of our ecology. I've never seen one, had one on our property and don't care if I ever see one. However, I also understand that other people may have a different viewpoint. But, in the exercise of that viewpoint, I don't see the necessity for usurping anybody's private property rights. If my neighbor can't farm his 200 acres of cotton, because in the farming it might kill a few prarie chicken eggs, I am sympathetic to the farmer to the extent that I suggest we do something else for prairie chicken protection. I wonder if government has ever heard of zoos to protect the people from dangerous animals or to protect other animals from the people. If zoos are too restrictive in size or other conditions requiring special habitat, there's plenty of government land already available, which could be used for special reservations.
The bottom line is that the Endangered Species Act was not well thought out. It is being used by environmentalists in cooperation with the Fish and Wildlife agency to unnecessarily usurp private property rights. It is up to Congress to change the law. We have congressional oversights for exactly that purpose. I also see that it may be difficult because a socialist Executive branch of government, such as we have now, wants control of all private property. This is the essence of Communist/Socialist doctrine. The question is whether Congress is part of that scheme. If not, push revision of the law!
Dear Representatives and Senators,
First it was the snail darter. This was followed by the spotted owl, the prairie chicken, and now the tortoise.
What do these animals have in common? They are a problem outgrowth of the Endangered Species Act, passed by Congress in 1973. Assuming that Congress had the preservation of the species at heart, they botched the job of setting up an appropriate law. As it now exists, the Endangered Species Act allows government to confiscate property rights on private land. The present contest between government's confiscation of cattle and the cattlemen in Nevada is the latest example. The issue is not whether the cattlemen have paid their grazing rights for grazing on government property. The issue is whether cattlemen can graze their cattle on their own land. The government says "no", because such grazing would interfere with the continued existence of local tortoise.
I personally don't care whether the snail darter, spotted owl, prairie chicken and tortoise continue to exist as part of our ecology. I've never seen one, had one on our property and don't care if I ever see one. However, I also understand that other people may have a different viewpoint. But, in the exercise of that viewpoint, I don't see the necessity for usurping anybody's private property rights. If my neighbor can't farm his 200 acres of cotton, because in the farming it might kill a few prarie chicken eggs, I am sympathetic to the farmer to the extent that I suggest we do something else for prairie chicken protection. I wonder if government has ever heard of zoos to protect the people from dangerous animals or to protect other animals from the people. If zoos are too restrictive in size or other conditions requiring special habitat, there's plenty of government land already available, which could be used for special reservations.
The bottom line is that the Endangered Species Act was not well thought out. It is being used by environmentalists in cooperation with the Fish and Wildlife agency to unnecessarily usurp private property rights. It is up to Congress to change the law. We have congressional oversights for exactly that purpose. I also see that it may be difficult because a socialist Executive branch of government, such as we have now, wants control of all private property. This is the essence of Communist/Socialist doctrine. The question is whether Congress is part of that scheme. If not, push revision of the law!
Friday, April 11, 2014
Close the AARP-E Program of the DOE
We have some bad news and good news on the energy research and development front.
The bad news is that the the Department of Energy five years ago set up the Advanced Research Projects Agency Energy (ARPA-E) as a separate section to promote the development of solar power, energy storage, transportation, energy efficiency, and more.These are good items for study, but the old bad news is that it is being done by government, rather than private industry. There is nothing in our Constitution which requires or even allows the federal government to be involved in commercial operations, even on a research and development scale, unless it applies directly to the nation's security.
The good news is that while the Obama Administration has been trying to kill use of fossil fuels in an effort to promote green energy, the latest AARP-E fair near Washington DC did not show this.. One stand included a project for powering passenger vehicles with natural gas. One of the four technology discussions by ARPA-E program directors was actually about natural gas production. Another involved the use of carbon dioxide in unconventional oil drilling.
While the Washington fair showed some favorable aspects of a more open mind on the part of AARP-E directors, I still want the government out. We have a well developed energy industry in this country that can well handle the establishment of various fairs to show off new technologies from an unbiased point of view, other than profit. This is where it should be.
I call on Congress to close down the AARP-E program. I want energy industry leaders to have a full opportunity to promote their products, without encumbrance by the federal government.
The bad news is that the the Department of Energy five years ago set up the Advanced Research Projects Agency Energy (ARPA-E) as a separate section to promote the development of solar power, energy storage, transportation, energy efficiency, and more.These are good items for study, but the old bad news is that it is being done by government, rather than private industry. There is nothing in our Constitution which requires or even allows the federal government to be involved in commercial operations, even on a research and development scale, unless it applies directly to the nation's security.
The good news is that while the Obama Administration has been trying to kill use of fossil fuels in an effort to promote green energy, the latest AARP-E fair near Washington DC did not show this.. One stand included a project for powering passenger vehicles with natural gas. One of the four technology discussions by ARPA-E program directors was actually about natural gas production. Another involved the use of carbon dioxide in unconventional oil drilling.
While the Washington fair showed some favorable aspects of a more open mind on the part of AARP-E directors, I still want the government out. We have a well developed energy industry in this country that can well handle the establishment of various fairs to show off new technologies from an unbiased point of view, other than profit. This is where it should be.
I call on Congress to close down the AARP-E program. I want energy industry leaders to have a full opportunity to promote their products, without encumbrance by the federal government.
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Veterans Administration Management
Open email to House Speaker John Boehner:
Dear Speaker Boehner,
I was somewhat surprised to see in your newsletter your focus on the Veterans Administration (VA). My surprise was not related to the general subject, but rather to the details.
You said, "I’m backing the VA Management Accountability Act (H.R. 4031), a bill introduced by House Republicans that gives the Secretary of the VA the ability to fire or demote senior executives who are not fulfilling their responsibilities to our service men and women." I had thought that top management in every branch of the federal government had the ability to fire or demote executives under their control, for what the boss judges as improper performance of duties. This is routine in industry, and I was not aware that it would take a separate law to do this with the VA.
I wonder also whether that law will really do any good because of its cultural conflict. By that I mean, I was under the impression that the culture of government employment did not allow firing or demotion, even though top management had that prerogative.
To be even more specific, the top dog of the VA is Eric K. Shinseki. We know that the VA has been sorely deficient in aiding veterans to obtain benefits, to which they are entitled. You also pointed out that a number of top executives have received significant bonuses up to $63,000. It seems to me that there's no way those top executives could have received bonuses without the approval of VA Secretary Eric Shinseki. This then leads us to the conclusion that Sec. Shinseki is obviously not running an efficient organization, whether he has had previous ability to hire and fire or not.
What do you plan to do about Sec. Shinseki, since he seems to be the key element in the inefficient operation of the VA?
Dear Speaker Boehner,
I was somewhat surprised to see in your newsletter your focus on the Veterans Administration (VA). My surprise was not related to the general subject, but rather to the details.
You said, "I’m backing the VA Management Accountability Act (H.R. 4031), a bill introduced by House Republicans that gives the Secretary of the VA the ability to fire or demote senior executives who are not fulfilling their responsibilities to our service men and women." I had thought that top management in every branch of the federal government had the ability to fire or demote executives under their control, for what the boss judges as improper performance of duties. This is routine in industry, and I was not aware that it would take a separate law to do this with the VA.
I wonder also whether that law will really do any good because of its cultural conflict. By that I mean, I was under the impression that the culture of government employment did not allow firing or demotion, even though top management had that prerogative.
To be even more specific, the top dog of the VA is Eric K. Shinseki. We know that the VA has been sorely deficient in aiding veterans to obtain benefits, to which they are entitled. You also pointed out that a number of top executives have received significant bonuses up to $63,000. It seems to me that there's no way those top executives could have received bonuses without the approval of VA Secretary Eric Shinseki. This then leads us to the conclusion that Sec. Shinseki is obviously not running an efficient organization, whether he has had previous ability to hire and fire or not.
What do you plan to do about Sec. Shinseki, since he seems to be the key element in the inefficient operation of the VA?
Citing Lois Lerner for Contempt of Congress
Open Email to House Speaker Boehner:
Dear Speaker Boehner,
Lois Lerner must be cited by Congress for "Contempt of Congress" and arrested.
The operation of our federal government according to the Constitution is simple. The Congress makes significant laws, which affects the progress of our nation. In the early years, the President was selected by members of Congress. This has changed, in that the president is elected by the people. However, operations are unaffected. The President has been appointed by the people to carry out the laws as developed by Congress. The President and His staff also have the authority to establish some rules on their own volition, but none of these must be in violation of congressional law or even congressional will.
In the case of Lois Lerner, Congress established the Internal Revenue Service as a tax collection agency. Congress continues to have oversight to be sure that the IRS is being operated in the manner intended by Congress. In order to accomplish this oversight, it must ask questions of various IRS employees concerning how they are performing their jobs.
Congress asked Lois Lerner twice for some of the details on how she was performing her job at the IRS. Note that this did not involve any questions concerning her personal rights, such as how she is conducting her life. Lois Lerner refused to answer Congress's questions, citing her rights under the Fifth Amendment. However, the Fifth Amendment has nothing to do with Congress's investigations of how the government is being run.
The key point in this contest between Congress and Lois Lerner is that Lois Lerner is challenging Congress's right of control, on behalf of the President. Simply stated, is the President working for Congress or vice versa? May I remind you that one of the causes of World War II was that the Reichstag (Congress) allowed Chancellor Adolf Hitler (President) to usurp its powers.
According to Wikipedia, there are two procedures which Congress can follow in the "contempt". In both cases, the committee involving the contempt, reports it to the full chamber (House or Senate), which then votes to reject or accept it for action.
In the "Inherent Contempt" process,the person cited is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation).
In the "Statutory Contempt" process, the presiding officer of the chamber is instructed to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia; according to the law it is the "duty" of the U.S. Attorney to refer the matter to a grand jury for action.The criminal offense of "contempt of Congress" sets the penalty at not less than one month nor more than twelve months in jail and a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000.
Since this contest is really between the Congress and the President, it is apparently inadvisable to involve the US Attorney General, because he works for the President, and in the case of Eric Holder, has been known to follow Pres. Obama's every wish.
While traditional penalties under the Inherent Contempt process are lesser, it would appear that this is the appropriate way to go with respect to Lois Lerner.
Dear Speaker Boehner,
Lois Lerner must be cited by Congress for "Contempt of Congress" and arrested.
The operation of our federal government according to the Constitution is simple. The Congress makes significant laws, which affects the progress of our nation. In the early years, the President was selected by members of Congress. This has changed, in that the president is elected by the people. However, operations are unaffected. The President has been appointed by the people to carry out the laws as developed by Congress. The President and His staff also have the authority to establish some rules on their own volition, but none of these must be in violation of congressional law or even congressional will.
In the case of Lois Lerner, Congress established the Internal Revenue Service as a tax collection agency. Congress continues to have oversight to be sure that the IRS is being operated in the manner intended by Congress. In order to accomplish this oversight, it must ask questions of various IRS employees concerning how they are performing their jobs.
Congress asked Lois Lerner twice for some of the details on how she was performing her job at the IRS. Note that this did not involve any questions concerning her personal rights, such as how she is conducting her life. Lois Lerner refused to answer Congress's questions, citing her rights under the Fifth Amendment. However, the Fifth Amendment has nothing to do with Congress's investigations of how the government is being run.
The key point in this contest between Congress and Lois Lerner is that Lois Lerner is challenging Congress's right of control, on behalf of the President. Simply stated, is the President working for Congress or vice versa? May I remind you that one of the causes of World War II was that the Reichstag (Congress) allowed Chancellor Adolf Hitler (President) to usurp its powers.
According to Wikipedia, there are two procedures which Congress can follow in the "contempt". In both cases, the committee involving the contempt, reports it to the full chamber (House or Senate), which then votes to reject or accept it for action.
In the "Inherent Contempt" process,the person cited is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation).
In the "Statutory Contempt" process, the presiding officer of the chamber is instructed to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia; according to the law it is the "duty" of the U.S. Attorney to refer the matter to a grand jury for action.The criminal offense of "contempt of Congress" sets the penalty at not less than one month nor more than twelve months in jail and a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000.
Since this contest is really between the Congress and the President, it is apparently inadvisable to involve the US Attorney General, because he works for the President, and in the case of Eric Holder, has been known to follow Pres. Obama's every wish.
While traditional penalties under the Inherent Contempt process are lesser, it would appear that this is the appropriate way to go with respect to Lois Lerner.
Monday, April 7, 2014
Federal Science Agency Funding
Congratulations to Rep. Lamar as Smith (TX)!
According to Andrea Widener in the March 17 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, Rep. Smith is trying to put the clamps on funding for the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.. The pseudoscientists, on the payroll, are screaming that this is political interference with the agencie's independence. They want to keep the bucks rolling, so they can grab their share.
Lamar Smith's bill which is entitled The Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science and Technolog y (FI RST), Act HR 4186 would authorize funding increases for NSF and not NIST through 2015 that would not keep pace with inflation. While that's good, it doesn't do enough. We need more extreme cuts. One provision of the bill requires an NSF official to personally affirm that grant awards are in the national interest. Another provision would give Congress more control over funding for individual NSF directorates including authorizing a 40% cut for the social, behavioral, and economic sciences in 2015.
Unfortunately, the bill is not likely to go anywhere with a democratically controlled Senate and a socialist president, with pen in hand ready to veto it. But, it is a step in the right direction and could be a forerunner of things to come, if Republicans grab control of the Senate in November and find some way to put the screws on Pres. Obama.
According to Andrea Widener in the March 17 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, Rep. Smith is trying to put the clamps on funding for the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.. The pseudoscientists, on the payroll, are screaming that this is political interference with the agencie's independence. They want to keep the bucks rolling, so they can grab their share.
Lamar Smith's bill which is entitled The Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science and Technolog y (FI RST), Act HR 4186 would authorize funding increases for NSF and not NIST through 2015 that would not keep pace with inflation. While that's good, it doesn't do enough. We need more extreme cuts. One provision of the bill requires an NSF official to personally affirm that grant awards are in the national interest. Another provision would give Congress more control over funding for individual NSF directorates including authorizing a 40% cut for the social, behavioral, and economic sciences in 2015.
Unfortunately, the bill is not likely to go anywhere with a democratically controlled Senate and a socialist president, with pen in hand ready to veto it. But, it is a step in the right direction and could be a forerunner of things to come, if Republicans grab control of the Senate in November and find some way to put the screws on Pres. Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
