Donald Sterling is the owner of a National Basketball Association (NBA) basketball team. He recently made anti-racial comments, which became public knowledge, whether intentional or not. The NBA is not a government organization.
The NBA barred Mr. Sterling from any personal future active participation in NBA activities. He was also fined $2.5 million. It should be noted that Mr. Sterling's team was not barred from the NBA. Since Mr. Sterling is the owner of the team and would have control of it, he will obviously have indirect future participation in NBA activities. This is further confirmed, if he pays the $2.5 million fine.
However, the above activities are details in the operation of a rivate business. Using his First Amendment rights, Mr. Sterling can say anything he desires. Government cannot control or penalize.
Even so, Mr. Sterling's comments could have broad negative sociological consequences. The issue may tend to propagate a strong public feeling against blacks, which is against the Constitution's anti-racial intent. An example of how such development could have a major effect on society's actions is illustrated in the anti-Semitism development in Germany prior to World War II. Hitler was able to use this to further inflame the German public, eventually leading to the Holocaust.
Because of the development of such dire consequences, the question again arises as to whether government should be involved in controlling such activities. Before replying to that question, it is also necessary to look at the reverse aspect, which is government promoting such activity as was used in Germany.
The conclusion must be that government should not be involved, in spite of its obvious importance. It is a sociologicl/cultural matter and must involve control only by the people, such as is now being done by the NBA with Mr. Sterling.
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Georgia's Law to Carry Concealed Firearms and the Second Amendment
The Washington Times says that Georgia Governor Gov. Nathan Deal has signed legislation expanding where people with licenses to carry can bring their guns in Georgia. The basic question is how does this relate to the Second Amendment to the Constitution?
The Second Amendment to the Constitution says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
From a historical perspective, arguments involving people's rights to keep and bear arms revolve mostly about the preliminary term, "well regulated militia". The original Constitution uses the term "militia" several times, but the forefathers were concerned with whether such militias could be used disadvantageously. Hence, it was agreed that regulated militias should be available forl formation and that the regulators should be citizens keeping and bearing arms.
From that point of view, the only purpose for people keeping and bearing arms was to guarantee regulation of a militia. In the present context of our society, there is no people's militia. However, the nature of a militia is such that one can be formed almost at the drop of a hat, and that it would be formed from people owning arms. The mere formation of a militia is an automatic development of an organization. The key point here is that federal militias, such as Army, Navy, Coast Guard, are not "well-regulated militias", in the context of the Second Amendment. They are instituted by government which is only a secondary influence of the people. Conversely, a militia organized directly by the people qualifies as a "well-regulated militia". Such direct militias occasionally spring up, but are usually not significant. However, the Second Amendment basically retains the right of the people to develop significant well-regulated militias (nongovernment) whenever they wish.
Since the Second Amendment basically involves the development of peoples militias, the people need to hold arms for such eventuality. The question then arises concerning the control of such arms for other purposes. By the Second Amendment, the people need to have arms privately available, but do not necessarily need them for other purposes, such as defense of household from intruders, nor need to carry them concealed or non-concealed. Those applications appear not to apply directly to the Second Amendment. However, the public interpretation has required that such uses be considered.
In essence, Gov.Deal's expansion of where citizens can carry concealed weapons in Georgia is unrelated to the Second Amendment. However, the Constitution does not otherwise address the matter of citizens holding and using weapons. Therefore, this right of control is reserved to the states, and Gov. Deal is on solid constitutional grounds. He and the Georgia legislature can do anything they wish with respect to citizens holding and using firearms, providing the availability of such firearms is not infringed for possible eventual use in formation of people's militias.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
From a historical perspective, arguments involving people's rights to keep and bear arms revolve mostly about the preliminary term, "well regulated militia". The original Constitution uses the term "militia" several times, but the forefathers were concerned with whether such militias could be used disadvantageously. Hence, it was agreed that regulated militias should be available forl formation and that the regulators should be citizens keeping and bearing arms.
From that point of view, the only purpose for people keeping and bearing arms was to guarantee regulation of a militia. In the present context of our society, there is no people's militia. However, the nature of a militia is such that one can be formed almost at the drop of a hat, and that it would be formed from people owning arms. The mere formation of a militia is an automatic development of an organization. The key point here is that federal militias, such as Army, Navy, Coast Guard, are not "well-regulated militias", in the context of the Second Amendment. They are instituted by government which is only a secondary influence of the people. Conversely, a militia organized directly by the people qualifies as a "well-regulated militia". Such direct militias occasionally spring up, but are usually not significant. However, the Second Amendment basically retains the right of the people to develop significant well-regulated militias (nongovernment) whenever they wish.
Since the Second Amendment basically involves the development of peoples militias, the people need to hold arms for such eventuality. The question then arises concerning the control of such arms for other purposes. By the Second Amendment, the people need to have arms privately available, but do not necessarily need them for other purposes, such as defense of household from intruders, nor need to carry them concealed or non-concealed. Those applications appear not to apply directly to the Second Amendment. However, the public interpretation has required that such uses be considered.
In essence, Gov.Deal's expansion of where citizens can carry concealed weapons in Georgia is unrelated to the Second Amendment. However, the Constitution does not otherwise address the matter of citizens holding and using weapons. Therefore, this right of control is reserved to the states, and Gov. Deal is on solid constitutional grounds. He and the Georgia legislature can do anything they wish with respect to citizens holding and using firearms, providing the availability of such firearms is not infringed for possible eventual use in formation of people's militias.
Friday, April 25, 2014
Right to Publish Lies
Ohio has a law that criminalizes false statements about candidates in the days before elections. More than a dozen other states have similar laws. The Ohio law has been brought to the Supreme Court for decision on constitutionality. According to the Washington Times, the Supreme Court justices Tuesday appeared skeptical about the constitutionality of the Ohio law,
If I may be so bold as to help the Supreme Court justices, the Ohio law and others like it are unconstitutional.
The First Amendment to the Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". The 10th amendment to the Constitution says, " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.". Since the Constitution addresses the matter of free speech, it is not reserved to the states.
It should also be noticed that the Constitution allows any form of speech. It does not restrict the speech only to facts or so-called truths. Since speech many times involves opinions, conjectures, misinterpretations or even intentional lies, the founding fathers wisely put in no such restrictions. Anything goes.
Any political candidate unfairly accused has recourse to his own defense or a counter offense. If a known unfair accusation has done damage to the accused, he has the right to pursue restitution in civil court.
Ohio's law limiting political speech only to so-called "truths" is unconstitutional and should be eliminated.
If I may be so bold as to help the Supreme Court justices, the Ohio law and others like it are unconstitutional.
The First Amendment to the Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". The 10th amendment to the Constitution says, " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.". Since the Constitution addresses the matter of free speech, it is not reserved to the states.
It should also be noticed that the Constitution allows any form of speech. It does not restrict the speech only to facts or so-called truths. Since speech many times involves opinions, conjectures, misinterpretations or even intentional lies, the founding fathers wisely put in no such restrictions. Anything goes.
Any political candidate unfairly accused has recourse to his own defense or a counter offense. If a known unfair accusation has done damage to the accused, he has the right to pursue restitution in civil court.
Ohio's law limiting political speech only to so-called "truths" is unconstitutional and should be eliminated.
Affirmative Action
According to the Washington Times,The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a state electorate’s right to ban the use of race in public university admissions..This says that affirmative action, which is based on race, can be struck down by a state's legislature for public university admissions. It does not say that affirmative action is no longer usable. It merely says that a state legislature can override it for public university admissions.
While this is a step in the right direction, I have long contended that affirmative action is anti-constitutional in any application.
The 10th Amendment to the Constitution says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Nowhere in the Constitution can be found a federal right to discriminate based on race (affirmative action). Therefore, this right to use or not to use affirmative action is a state's right. Any action by the federal government involving affirmative action is contrary to the Constitution.
Section 1 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution says, " No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." In effect, it says that a state law showing partiality to certain races for college/university admission actually ábridges the rights of other races, and is therefore unconstitutional. States affirmative action can get around this by operating as a "practice, rather than a law. However, states can also pass laws contrarily to disallow affirmative action. This was done with respect to college/university admissions in Michigan, but could be extended to any aspect of affirmative action.
The lone dissenter in the Tuesday Supreme Court ruling was Justice Sotomayor. She claimed that affirmative action helped her obtain an education which led to her present position of a Supreme Court Justice. This argument is about equivalent to a bank robber justifying his action because he was able to buy a new BMW. However, she goes on to say that race does matter in the United States and that blacks and hispanics have traditionally had fewer opportunities than whites for economic advancement. Most people will likely admit this and most will also likely agree that some effort should be applied to raising economic opportunities for blacks and hispanics. However, affirmative action is not the way to go. It should not have been used and should not continue to be used, because it is unconstitutional. Some other more imaginative approaches need to be developed in order to equalize the playing field. This does not necessarily mean that it has to be done through government. In addition, while affirmative action has been used unconstitutionally for many years, it has had a significant effect on the equalization process. Because of this, the present problem may be significantly less than it had been many years ago and perhaps more easily addressed.
While this is a step in the right direction, I have long contended that affirmative action is anti-constitutional in any application.
The 10th Amendment to the Constitution says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Nowhere in the Constitution can be found a federal right to discriminate based on race (affirmative action). Therefore, this right to use or not to use affirmative action is a state's right. Any action by the federal government involving affirmative action is contrary to the Constitution.
Section 1 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution says, " No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." In effect, it says that a state law showing partiality to certain races for college/university admission actually ábridges the rights of other races, and is therefore unconstitutional. States affirmative action can get around this by operating as a "practice, rather than a law. However, states can also pass laws contrarily to disallow affirmative action. This was done with respect to college/university admissions in Michigan, but could be extended to any aspect of affirmative action.
The lone dissenter in the Tuesday Supreme Court ruling was Justice Sotomayor. She claimed that affirmative action helped her obtain an education which led to her present position of a Supreme Court Justice. This argument is about equivalent to a bank robber justifying his action because he was able to buy a new BMW. However, she goes on to say that race does matter in the United States and that blacks and hispanics have traditionally had fewer opportunities than whites for economic advancement. Most people will likely admit this and most will also likely agree that some effort should be applied to raising economic opportunities for blacks and hispanics. However, affirmative action is not the way to go. It should not have been used and should not continue to be used, because it is unconstitutional. Some other more imaginative approaches need to be developed in order to equalize the playing field. This does not necessarily mean that it has to be done through government. In addition, while affirmative action has been used unconstitutionally for many years, it has had a significant effect on the equalization process. Because of this, the present problem may be significantly less than it had been many years ago and perhaps more easily addressed.
Monday, April 21, 2014
Ethanol Mandates in Motor Fuel
Open Email to Congress:
Dear Representatives and Senators,
Seven years ago, Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. It was signed into law by Pres. George Bush in December 2007. At that time, both Congress and the President were concerned that the millions of cars on US roads using gasoline from petroleum presented a national hazard for continuance of supply and also involving US security.
At that time, the US was using 21,000 barrels per day and and was short 12,000 barrels per day. The shortage was imported, about half of it from OPEC, the international cartel.
We now use 19,000 barrels per day and import 5000 barrels per day. We also export about 3000 barrels per day. This leaves a slight deficit for complete supply from US sources, but that is expected to be eliminated in the next few years. Times have changed. We have cut back on automotive usage by improved mileage for vehicles, but the big changes have been in energy production. There have been two changes in drilling operations; fracking and horizontal drilling.
When the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 was passed, it included among other things a Renewable Fuel Standard mandate. With subsequent changes, the mandate requires 15.2 billion gallons of renewable fuel be blended into transportation fuel in 2012, eventually ramping up to 36 billion gallons in 2022. Of that 36 billion number, the United States must produce 16 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol, 15 billion gallons of traditional corn-based ethanol, 4 billion gallons of advanced biofuels and 1 billion gallons of biodiesel fuel to be blended into gasoline and Diesel by 2022.
We could stop here with the obvious conclusion that the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 was passed seven years ago, and the radical change in US petroleum productive capacity makes many portions, particularly the Renewable Fuel Standard Law, no longer applicable. However, we must go on, because it hasn't ended here. The elimination of two subsidies has made the disastrous financial aspect less critical, but we are still faced with the volume mandates of the Renewable Fuel Standard. To put that item in perspective, let's look at the technology.
The process for producing ethanol from cellulose [the 16 billion gallons of the Renewable Fuel Standard] is similar to that for production from cornstarch products, except for an additional complication. Cellulose includes: corn stover, which is leaves and stalks; switch grass; wood; and many other natural plants.. Unfortunately, while cornstarch is easily used by yeast as a raw material in the fermentation to ethanol, yeast cannot act directly on cellulosic materials. The cellulosic materials must first be converted to an available starch or sugars, which add an additional expensive step. While the technology to convert cellulose to available sugars is known, it is not found to be economically feasible on a commercial scale. For this reason there has been no significant quantities of commercially available ethanol produced from cellulose.
Later this year DuPont is scheduled to finish a $200 million-plus facility in Nevada, Iowa, that will produce 30 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol using corn stover. In addition,POET-DSM, a joint operation between leading U.S. ethanol maker POET LLC and Dutch food and chemicals group DSM, will complete a $250 million facility in Emmetsburg, in the north-central part of the No. 1 corn-growing state, to produce 7 million gallons of ethanol this year using cobs and other corn "stover". The Poet-DSM is said to be privately financed, but it In September 2011, the same month the Solyndra scandal broke, the government awarded $237 million in loan guarantees to help finance construction of two cellulosic ethanol plants in Kansas and Iowa. Note that the planned production quantity will be only 2.3% of the mandated amount.
In view of the above, I call on Congress and the President to modify the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The ethanol and other fuel mandates of the Renewable Fuel Standard should be eliminated, because they are unrealistic in quantity and have no basis of need based upon the present and projected lower cost and higher production rate of petroleum in the US.
Dear Representatives and Senators,
Seven years ago, Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. It was signed into law by Pres. George Bush in December 2007. At that time, both Congress and the President were concerned that the millions of cars on US roads using gasoline from petroleum presented a national hazard for continuance of supply and also involving US security.
At that time, the US was using 21,000 barrels per day and and was short 12,000 barrels per day. The shortage was imported, about half of it from OPEC, the international cartel.
We now use 19,000 barrels per day and import 5000 barrels per day. We also export about 3000 barrels per day. This leaves a slight deficit for complete supply from US sources, but that is expected to be eliminated in the next few years. Times have changed. We have cut back on automotive usage by improved mileage for vehicles, but the big changes have been in energy production. There have been two changes in drilling operations; fracking and horizontal drilling.
When the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 was passed, it included among other things a Renewable Fuel Standard mandate. With subsequent changes, the mandate requires 15.2 billion gallons of renewable fuel be blended into transportation fuel in 2012, eventually ramping up to 36 billion gallons in 2022. Of that 36 billion number, the United States must produce 16 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol, 15 billion gallons of traditional corn-based ethanol, 4 billion gallons of advanced biofuels and 1 billion gallons of biodiesel fuel to be blended into gasoline and Diesel by 2022.
We could stop here with the obvious conclusion that the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 was passed seven years ago, and the radical change in US petroleum productive capacity makes many portions, particularly the Renewable Fuel Standard Law, no longer applicable. However, we must go on, because it hasn't ended here. The elimination of two subsidies has made the disastrous financial aspect less critical, but we are still faced with the volume mandates of the Renewable Fuel Standard. To put that item in perspective, let's look at the technology.
The process for producing ethanol from cellulose [the 16 billion gallons of the Renewable Fuel Standard] is similar to that for production from cornstarch products, except for an additional complication. Cellulose includes: corn stover, which is leaves and stalks; switch grass; wood; and many other natural plants.. Unfortunately, while cornstarch is easily used by yeast as a raw material in the fermentation to ethanol, yeast cannot act directly on cellulosic materials. The cellulosic materials must first be converted to an available starch or sugars, which add an additional expensive step. While the technology to convert cellulose to available sugars is known, it is not found to be economically feasible on a commercial scale. For this reason there has been no significant quantities of commercially available ethanol produced from cellulose.
Later this year DuPont is scheduled to finish a $200 million-plus facility in Nevada, Iowa, that will produce 30 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol using corn stover. In addition,POET-DSM, a joint operation between leading U.S. ethanol maker POET LLC and Dutch food and chemicals group DSM, will complete a $250 million facility in Emmetsburg, in the north-central part of the No. 1 corn-growing state, to produce 7 million gallons of ethanol this year using cobs and other corn "stover". The Poet-DSM is said to be privately financed, but it In September 2011, the same month the Solyndra scandal broke, the government awarded $237 million in loan guarantees to help finance construction of two cellulosic ethanol plants in Kansas and Iowa. Note that the planned production quantity will be only 2.3% of the mandated amount.
In view of the above, I call on Congress and the President to modify the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The ethanol and other fuel mandates of the Renewable Fuel Standard should be eliminated, because they are unrealistic in quantity and have no basis of need based upon the present and projected lower cost and higher production rate of petroleum in the US.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Afghanistan
The Washington Times says, "Secret U.S. assessments show Afghanistan not ready to govern on own". And that's all it says. I wonder if I'm supposed to get excited over the fact that it is a secret assessment or the statement that Afghanistan is not ready to govern on its own.
I'm tired of this whole mess. We have been in Afghanistan militarily and probably privately for years at the cost of billions of dollars and the lives of many of our brave soldiers. For what purpose? There are only two possibilities. We are trying to contain Al Qaeda, nationbuilding, or both. Both are ridiculous. The Russians already showed us that with their experience in Afghanistan. What will it take to learn a lesson?
But, let's not just complain. With respect to nationbuilding, do we want to make everybody like us? Christianity has a "grand commission", which is to spread the gospel to all the world and convert everybody to Christianity. This is not the function of our federal government. We can't do this based on religion. The Constitution forbids it in the First Amendment. However, Christianity can do its thing based on its own assets and desires.
With respect Al Qaeda, we have technology. We don't need boots on the ground to handle most of the Al Qaeda problems. We have drones with explosives. We have surveillance from satellites. A technologically capable US military can well handle Al Qaeda training camps and administrative complexes, wherever they exist, be it Afghanistan or Somalia.
We need to cut down on the Sen. McCain war rhetoric and get on with improving our economy and reducing our debt. As we go along, we should handle Al Qaeda threats to the US with complete objectivity. That is, bomb them wherever they are a threat, including civilian population which supports them in the vicinity. We will not be able to eliminate Al Qaeda, we can only control them, in the same manner that we control murder and drugs.
I'm tired of this whole mess. We have been in Afghanistan militarily and probably privately for years at the cost of billions of dollars and the lives of many of our brave soldiers. For what purpose? There are only two possibilities. We are trying to contain Al Qaeda, nationbuilding, or both. Both are ridiculous. The Russians already showed us that with their experience in Afghanistan. What will it take to learn a lesson?
But, let's not just complain. With respect to nationbuilding, do we want to make everybody like us? Christianity has a "grand commission", which is to spread the gospel to all the world and convert everybody to Christianity. This is not the function of our federal government. We can't do this based on religion. The Constitution forbids it in the First Amendment. However, Christianity can do its thing based on its own assets and desires.
With respect Al Qaeda, we have technology. We don't need boots on the ground to handle most of the Al Qaeda problems. We have drones with explosives. We have surveillance from satellites. A technologically capable US military can well handle Al Qaeda training camps and administrative complexes, wherever they exist, be it Afghanistan or Somalia.
We need to cut down on the Sen. McCain war rhetoric and get on with improving our economy and reducing our debt. As we go along, we should handle Al Qaeda threats to the US with complete objectivity. That is, bomb them wherever they are a threat, including civilian population which supports them in the vicinity. We will not be able to eliminate Al Qaeda, we can only control them, in the same manner that we control murder and drugs.
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Old-Timers Pulled from Congress
Jeff Johnson has an article in the April 7 issue of Chemical and Engineering News concerning members of Congress with decades of experience retiring from a partisan, deadlocked Congress.
His first paragraph says, "During the past few months, long serving members of the Senate and House of Representatives have one after another announced that they will not seek reelection when the second session of the 113th Congress draws to a close. This year, the departure of just three prominent House members will, in effect, remove nearly 140 years of experience from the lower body."
Hooray!
Let's remember that long-time members of Congress have put us in a position of a $17 trillion debt and continued over-expenditure to increase the debt, without any serious consideration for practicality of expense. We are glad to see them go. Hopefully, their replacements will be better, but they can't be much worse.
There are a few exceptions. I'm sorry to see Michelle Bachmann leave. She is one of the few that have their heads screwed on right.
His first paragraph says, "During the past few months, long serving members of the Senate and House of Representatives have one after another announced that they will not seek reelection when the second session of the 113th Congress draws to a close. This year, the departure of just three prominent House members will, in effect, remove nearly 140 years of experience from the lower body."
Hooray!
Let's remember that long-time members of Congress have put us in a position of a $17 trillion debt and continued over-expenditure to increase the debt, without any serious consideration for practicality of expense. We are glad to see them go. Hopefully, their replacements will be better, but they can't be much worse.
There are a few exceptions. I'm sorry to see Michelle Bachmann leave. She is one of the few that have their heads screwed on right.
Monday, April 14, 2014
The American Chemical Societies Entrepreneurial Initiative
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.
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.
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)
