In a May 29th issue of Chemical and Engineering New s, Linda Wang reports on ACS members lobbying Capitol Hill for more federal research support. One of the lobbyists said, "the vast majority of academic research is supported by federal grants".
The basis of the ACS lobbying effort is that there is within the federal government an effort to reduce the federal budget, and this would adversely affect the funds for research in academia. When people's incomes are cut, they tend to get excited.
Of course, the basic problem is that there never have been government funding of academic research in the first place. However, government has been able to use academia as a political tool. For example, when Obama wants to foster the development of economic vehicles, he issues instructions to various agencies to allow grants to universities for the study of such things as the decline of the sand lizard in West Texas and the resultant need to limit oil drilling. There also may be a grant to study the economics of battery production. Some of these research grants obviously have no significance in an open-market society. Others are on subjects important for study, but should not involve taxpayer funds through government. For example battery economics could best be studied in the research departments of battery manufacturers. Companies can also farm out part of their research of the research to academia by issuing private grants.
I am not proposing that universities give up research. I am proposing that university research can be done under the expense of the university itself and various supporting private companies, as was standard practice many years ago. It is completely unreasonable and unnecessary that taxpayers need to be footing the bill for a political football.
Saturday, June 9, 2012
The National Research Council Should Not Be Telling University Professors How to Teach
In the May 28th issue of Chemical and Engineering News, Andrea Widener reviews a report from the National Research Council (NRC) concerning science teaching practices for undergraduate students.
The NRC report says that college and university professors are not keeping up with technology changes which would make the teaching of science more efficient and understandable. They say, for example, that students across disciplines have trouble understanding graphs, models or other important depictions of science.
While that may be, the teaching of science is complex and undoubtedly some professors tend to use old-fashioned methods. I also have no doubt that professors in general are interested in teaching to the best of their ability and use new technology, wherever they feel if is appropriate.
I also suggest that the National Research Council has no business involving itself in such subject. Taxpayer money should not be spent on telling colleges and universities how they should teach. We have the best higher education system in the world, although I disagree with many of the socialistic concepts being taught in non-science courses and the use of taxpayer money for grants on subjects that need not be investigated.
The NRC report says that college and university professors are not keeping up with technology changes which would make the teaching of science more efficient and understandable. They say, for example, that students across disciplines have trouble understanding graphs, models or other important depictions of science.
While that may be, the teaching of science is complex and undoubtedly some professors tend to use old-fashioned methods. I also have no doubt that professors in general are interested in teaching to the best of their ability and use new technology, wherever they feel if is appropriate.
I also suggest that the National Research Council has no business involving itself in such subject. Taxpayer money should not be spent on telling colleges and universities how they should teach. We have the best higher education system in the world, although I disagree with many of the socialistic concepts being taught in non-science courses and the use of taxpayer money for grants on subjects that need not be investigated.
Women's Wages Relative to Men's
Pres. Obama has been talking recently about equalizing men's and women's wages. As I recall the discussion, the complaint seems to be that women receive on average only 70% of the wages received by men for the same jobs.
The question is whether this wage difference is a discrimination based on sex or whether there are market forces at work. I propose that it is only the latter. I believe most people would agree that while women have attributes similar to those of men, there are differences not only in their reproductive apparatus, but also in their psychologies. Women tend to be more nurturing, while men tend to be more aggressive. Traditionally these differences are recognized in the development of different roles. Men have been the traditional hunters, while women have been keeping the home fires burning. Basically, women are much more inclined to be family-oriented. This psychology difference carries through into the outside world of economics. Men have traditionally looked to a career as the most consuming item of their existence, with family details as secondary. That is not to say that men are not basically interested in family. They are. Family is their number one priority, but it must not interfere with their employment and wages to guarantee the support of the family. This is the hunter-supply aspect
Contrarily, in the nurturing mode, women are much more interested in the details of family, such as all of the various aspects of raising children.
When a company hires an employee, it does so on the basis of expected long-term service. The employee is expected to learn his job and create stability and devotion to the progress and future of the organization. For example, if the company decides that it needs an employee at a different work location than the one to which he has previously been assigned, the organization expects that that employee will move with his family to do the job to which he has now been assigned. In such circumstances, wives occasionally object, but almost all will usually go along with the program. Conversely, if the wife is employed and assigned to a different location, it is generally unlikely that a man would be willing to follow the geographical change. He would object strongly, and this causes problems with the company. In many such situations, the wife will be inclined to refuse the employment move. Because of this, it is apparent that generally companies do not obtain as full value concerning dedication and company stability from a woman employee as from a man employee. Therefore, the woman employee is worth less to the organization. This difference is usually demonstrated in lower salary for a woman.
Difference in psychology also has an effect on the company day-to-day operations. In the family of husband and wife, it is usually the wife who will be inclined to take off from work in order to handle the doctor or dentist requirements for the children. It is not that women are less reliable than men, it is only that women have a different sense of priorities, which generally works against value to a company. Under these circumstances, I believe that the market may be reasonably correct in paying women on average 70% of the salary for men at the same job. This is not to say that there are not many exceptions to women who have pursued careers in preference to family needs, but the average in our society seems to be that the 70% consideration might be about right.
Working against the fundamental natures of men and women and against the efficient operations of companies, Pres. Obama may be on the wrong track in trying to equalize men's and women's salaries.
The question is whether this wage difference is a discrimination based on sex or whether there are market forces at work. I propose that it is only the latter. I believe most people would agree that while women have attributes similar to those of men, there are differences not only in their reproductive apparatus, but also in their psychologies. Women tend to be more nurturing, while men tend to be more aggressive. Traditionally these differences are recognized in the development of different roles. Men have been the traditional hunters, while women have been keeping the home fires burning. Basically, women are much more inclined to be family-oriented. This psychology difference carries through into the outside world of economics. Men have traditionally looked to a career as the most consuming item of their existence, with family details as secondary. That is not to say that men are not basically interested in family. They are. Family is their number one priority, but it must not interfere with their employment and wages to guarantee the support of the family. This is the hunter-supply aspect
Contrarily, in the nurturing mode, women are much more interested in the details of family, such as all of the various aspects of raising children.
When a company hires an employee, it does so on the basis of expected long-term service. The employee is expected to learn his job and create stability and devotion to the progress and future of the organization. For example, if the company decides that it needs an employee at a different work location than the one to which he has previously been assigned, the organization expects that that employee will move with his family to do the job to which he has now been assigned. In such circumstances, wives occasionally object, but almost all will usually go along with the program. Conversely, if the wife is employed and assigned to a different location, it is generally unlikely that a man would be willing to follow the geographical change. He would object strongly, and this causes problems with the company. In many such situations, the wife will be inclined to refuse the employment move. Because of this, it is apparent that generally companies do not obtain as full value concerning dedication and company stability from a woman employee as from a man employee. Therefore, the woman employee is worth less to the organization. This difference is usually demonstrated in lower salary for a woman.
Difference in psychology also has an effect on the company day-to-day operations. In the family of husband and wife, it is usually the wife who will be inclined to take off from work in order to handle the doctor or dentist requirements for the children. It is not that women are less reliable than men, it is only that women have a different sense of priorities, which generally works against value to a company. Under these circumstances, I believe that the market may be reasonably correct in paying women on average 70% of the salary for men at the same job. This is not to say that there are not many exceptions to women who have pursued careers in preference to family needs, but the average in our society seems to be that the 70% consideration might be about right.
Working against the fundamental natures of men and women and against the efficient operations of companies, Pres. Obama may be on the wrong track in trying to equalize men's and women's salaries.
Monday, June 4, 2012
Public Safety Risks of Chemical Industry Origin
The May 7, 2010 issue of Chemical and Engineering News has three-page article by Glenn Hess concerning the balance between the public's right to know about major chemical hazards to itself and how this information will also help terrorists.
As chemical companies reveal hazard information, there's no doubt that terrorist organizations will also profit from the release and use the information to formulate plans of destruction. However, that risk is small considering the fact that terrorist organizations are quite adept at unearthing profitable hazard information on their own, and the likelihood that a public release of information would be helpful to them is rather remote.
Conversely, chemical industry accidents occur periodically, and a public release of chemical industry hazards will foster corrections and will undoubtedly decrease the accident rate, particularly on the more serious risks. Let's all remember the Bhopal incident in India, where thousands of citizens were killed or permanently injured as a result of an accident having nothing to do with terrorism. A reconstruction of the facts at the time indicates that this accident could have been avoided and would likely have been avoided, if the public had prior knowledge of the risk.
The chemical industry has a right to control its property and its technology. But where the public can also be seriously affected by an accident, a chemical company has a responsibility to inform the public of any substantial risk, and also inform the public of what action ii is taking to minimize the risks.
As chemical companies reveal hazard information, there's no doubt that terrorist organizations will also profit from the release and use the information to formulate plans of destruction. However, that risk is small considering the fact that terrorist organizations are quite adept at unearthing profitable hazard information on their own, and the likelihood that a public release of information would be helpful to them is rather remote.
Conversely, chemical industry accidents occur periodically, and a public release of chemical industry hazards will foster corrections and will undoubtedly decrease the accident rate, particularly on the more serious risks. Let's all remember the Bhopal incident in India, where thousands of citizens were killed or permanently injured as a result of an accident having nothing to do with terrorism. A reconstruction of the facts at the time indicates that this accident could have been avoided and would likely have been avoided, if the public had prior knowledge of the risk.
The chemical industry has a right to control its property and its technology. But where the public can also be seriously affected by an accident, a chemical company has a responsibility to inform the public of any substantial risk, and also inform the public of what action ii is taking to minimize the risks.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
The Pakistani Doctor's 30-Year Prison Sentence
Why did the Pakistanis give the doctor, who helped the US locate Osama bin Laden, a 30-year prison sentence?
You need to think like a Pakistani in order to get the answer. Basically, it was a business gone bad.
The US is afraid of terrorists and terrorist organizations, particularly foreign-based. The US government feels that Pakistan is a breeding ground for such terrorists and through substantial monetary payments, it solicits help from the Pakistani government to control the terrorists.
However, the Pakistani government recognizes that the only reason it obtains substantial monetary funds from the US is because of the existence of terrorists in their country. In other words, if there were no terrorists, the US would have no reason to send money. The obvious course of Pakistani action is to maintain terrorist activity in order to maintain a continuing flow of US funds.
As long as Osama bin Laden was alive, the US had a greater fear of terrorism and a willingness to part with more money. This was obviously an incentive to the Pakistani government to maintain the life of Osama bin Laden. The best way to do this was to have him in Pakistan and closely protected.
However, the Pakistani doctor blew the cover by revealing the location of Osama bin Laden, which resulted in his death at the hands of US forces. This significantly reduces the incentive of the US government to maintain a high flow of funds to Pakistan. Obviously, the Pakistan government is upset with this development and has given the doctor appropriate retribution of a 30-year prison sentence.
You need to think like a Pakistani in order to get the answer. Basically, it was a business gone bad.
The US is afraid of terrorists and terrorist organizations, particularly foreign-based. The US government feels that Pakistan is a breeding ground for such terrorists and through substantial monetary payments, it solicits help from the Pakistani government to control the terrorists.
However, the Pakistani government recognizes that the only reason it obtains substantial monetary funds from the US is because of the existence of terrorists in their country. In other words, if there were no terrorists, the US would have no reason to send money. The obvious course of Pakistani action is to maintain terrorist activity in order to maintain a continuing flow of US funds.
As long as Osama bin Laden was alive, the US had a greater fear of terrorism and a willingness to part with more money. This was obviously an incentive to the Pakistani government to maintain the life of Osama bin Laden. The best way to do this was to have him in Pakistan and closely protected.
However, the Pakistani doctor blew the cover by revealing the location of Osama bin Laden, which resulted in his death at the hands of US forces. This significantly reduces the incentive of the US government to maintain a high flow of funds to Pakistan. Obviously, the Pakistan government is upset with this development and has given the doctor appropriate retribution of a 30-year prison sentence.
Monday, May 28, 2012
"WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO POSSESS GUNS."
This is an Internet poll on gun
ownership. It was forwarded to me by Gordon Anderson.
If you click on the "USATODAY.COM", you
will be asked the question, "Does the Second Amendment give individuals the
right to bear arms?. If you vote "yes", you will receive a message that 97% of
respondents voted the same way.
I won't take issue with the
numbers.
I question the motivation of the voters.
I suspect that the 97% "yes" voters are not actually voting on whether the 2nd
Amendment gives them the right to own guns. They likely are voting on their desire
to own guns.
Why would they
take this attitude? It's something to consider on this Memorial Day, when
we honor our fallen veterans, who attempted to preserve our freedoms, or some
may say "preserve our liberty".
We need to go back to the War of Independence, also known
as the Revolutionary War. It was there that our freedoms were established. These
freedoms were only later documented. The British used guns to quell the
rebellion. The colonists used guns to persist in pursuit of independence and
freedom. Colonial guns made the difference. Without them, we would still be
British subjects.
What about subsequent wars, such as the Korean War, the
Vietnam War, the Iraq War the Libya War, and the Afghanistan War? Were they wars
to reserve our liberties and freedom? There are various opinions, but my claim
is that it is a long stretch to believe that our freedoms were threatened by
dictators and other regimes in those countries. But that is not the issue We are
talking about guns, and in each of those conflicts guns were heavily
involved.
We now have at home an increasing national objection to
actions by our federal government. Our government officials are no less human
than Sadaam Hussein or Qaddafi. They like power and will use force if necessary
to retain it. Can it happen here, as it did in Iraq and Libya and now in Syria?
Unlikely, but why take chances? The Federal Government would like a weakened
populace, if push comes to shove, and is opposed to citizens owning guns. The
citizens see the potential danger and wish to protect themselves against radical
government actions to destroy liberties. The presence of guns in the hands of
citizens also serves to restrain government, even if the guns are not
used.
None of the above is applicable to the slow loss of
freedoms, which has been occurring through socialist conversion over the past 80
years, but that is another matter for discussion at a later time and perhaps a
temporary reprieve in the forthcoming November
elections.
-----Original Message-----
Subject: "WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO POSSESS GUNS." TAKES 10 SECONDS ... DO IT AND PASS ...
Subject: "WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO POSSESS GUNS." TAKES 10 SECONDS ... DO IT AND PASS ...
I
don’t presently own a gun and have no immediate plans to buy one….but I don’t
think the government has the right to forbid me to buy one if I want to……just
another step to set us up for socialism control!
GNA
Subject: "WE HAVE
NO RIGHT TO POSSESS GUNS." TAKES 10 SECONDS ... DO IT AND PASS
...
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
