Syria Humanitarian?

   It has recently been revealed that the US will send $60 million of foreign aid to Syrian rebels. The question is why? Is it to help oust Pres. Assad? The political answer is "no". The Obama Administration said it is for humanitarian purposes, but I suspect that is a deception to avoid objections to any obvious grant of military aid to the rebels. The likelihood is that we will not ship food and clothing. It is easier to ship money. How that money is spent is anybody's guess, and the chances are that it will be spent on military equipment to defeat Pres. Assad's army.
    Why does Pres. Obama want to oust Pres. Assad? That's anybody's guess, but it probably fits in with our previous money grants to Arab countries, especially Egypt and Libya.
    Pres. Mubarak ran Egypt nicely for many years, with US support of an average $2 billion per year since 1979. For that sum, the US bought military access to the Suez Canal and an acceptance of Israel as a US ally. Too much to pay? Probably, but $2 billion didn't sound like much to the President or Congress, and they paid it. Suddenly, Pres. Obama decided he didn't like Pres. Mubarak anymore and used the $2 billion per year payments as a wedge to obtain Mubarak's ouster. We now have Pres. Morsi, who is part of the Muslim Brotherhood and openly antagonistic to the US, in spite of continuing to receive US grants. He is also especially antagonistic to our ally Israel.
    In Libya, Pres. Gaddafi was in charge. Agreeably, he was a bad actor. He was responsible for the killing of many US citizens, particularly in an airplane crash. He probably deserved ousting, but that is conjectural, because it appears that in his last years he seemed to be more cooperative. In any event, Pres. Obama and Congress spent an estimated $900 million to oust him and replace him with who knows what. Whoever seems to be in charge of the Libyan government appears to be no friend of the US. Several months ago we lost an ambassador and a few other Americans in an assassination. The Libyan government, if there is one, has been no help in placing responsibility for this act of injustice.
    With the poor record of Pres. Obama and Congress spending a substantial amount of money to change the complexion of Middle East politics, why is it that we appear to continue down this ridiculous path?
    I don't like or dislike Pres. Assad of Syria. I know that he ran the country quite well for a number of years and its citizens did not appear to be especially impoverished. Rebels now want control, and the US appears to give support. As we do so, will we be traveling down the path of Egypt and Libya to our own disadvantage?
    The guise of current humanitarian support appears to be based on news reports that Assad is killing his own people. The implication is that "his own people" are innocent civilians and children. That's ridiculous! No leader in his right mind wants to kill the people that he leads. As Assad kills people in Syria, you can be sure that, other than collateral damage, his intention is to wipe out the rebels and retain power.
    Humanitarianism is another word for compassion, which is an emotion of individuals. Some acts or reports generate compassion in some individuals and not in others. In government, there is no room for compassion. Compassion is reserved for individuals and their abilities to act on the bases of the degree of compassion they feel and their capabilities. If individual Americans want to send humanitarian help to the people of Syria, that should be their choice, not the function of the US government.
    How does this add up? The Obama Administration and Congress have a poor record in reorganizing Middle East governments. They should stop spending taxpayer money on such programs. Additionally, the US government should not be in the compassion business and should stop spending money on that, whether actual or a guise for military assistance.

Science and Technology Research

    When most people think about science and technology, they think about the development of the airplane, the telephone, and more recently the digital camera and the smart phone. When they think about science and technology research, they think about the Wright brothers, Alexander Graham Bell, or Apple. Seldom do they think about government research, which is a multibillion dollar industry.
    When a private company or public corporation engages in research, it does so with the sole intention of developing new products for sale at a profit.
    When government engages in research, it does so with the intention of supporting an ideology or an increase in power through the spending of money.
    The difference is that with private companies and public corporations, the Board of Directors and stockholders are interested in profit. If the CEO tries to use research for the promotion of an ideology, it will not be tolerated either by the Board or the stockholders. Conversely, government has no accountability concerning its research expenditures on practical projects or ideology, because a naïve public normally does not consider the difference or else assumes that is not important to them because other people are paying for it.
    I have been for some time bemoaning the fact of government waste through its research program, which essentially involves grants to universities for projects attempting to obtain scientific support for ideological positions. Grants involving carbon dioxide and climate change are typical are the most egregious. I say that because the grant support program always starts with a supposition that carbon dioxide emissions control climate. There is never a grant attempting to prove that the two are related.
    However, with the introduction of the sequester, there is good news. Not that the grant program is being changed to one of greater practicality, but rather that is being significantly reduced and thereby reducing expenditures on ideological support, which have no basis for improving the lifestyle of the public.
    The following are details of the progress we are starting to make:
    The National Institute of Health (NIH) will eliminate hundreds of grants. It is said that several thousand research positions could be eliminated, although it is hard for me to understand why elimination of grant to a professor would be so compounded. If one grant supports 10 people, it is obviously excessive.
    At the National Science Foundation (NSF) research grants will be reduced by 1000. This is said to have supported 12,000 employees. Again, obviously excessive.
    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will cut an unspecified number of grants.
    The Department of Energy (DOE) will also have an unspecified number of cuts, some of which will negatively affect clean energy development, which in my judgment is a loser because it is ahead of its time and should be cut.
    The DOE has a separate Office of Science and 10 national laboratories. Sec. Chu says 25,000 researchers could be negatively affected by the cuts. I say "great". In fact, I have been advocating for some time the elimination of the Department of Energy, which existence has not only been a waste of money but a detriment to the development of our economy. Sec. Chu recently announced his resignation, but that should be followed by elimination of the agency as a whole.
    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not mention cuts in grants. Rather, it claims that it will have to cut development of more efficient procedures to evaluate chemical hazards, including endocrine disruptors. This work is obviously advantageous to society and needs to be continued, at least in part. However, the necessary research should be conducted within government laboratories and not through grants to universities, who basically have no background in such work. Alternatively, a lot of the responsibility for safety of new or existing chemical products can be passed to the suppliers, with the EPA only acting as controller for approval or disapproval of a product for public use.
    In summary, the sequestration is bringing us some good results in eliminating programs, which should have never been instituted the first place. But, still more can be done. There has been excessive growth, but there can also be excessive cuts. The key to determining what is necessary is a consideration of what is practical and what is ideological.

A Burdensome Government

In the January 28 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, Susan Morrissey discusses the financial problems of the federal government. She covers the basic attitude of Congress kicking the can down the road with respect to limitations on the national debt and inability to develop an appropriate budget.

She says, however, that most of this is not particularly applicable to science. In spite of that comment, she also says that a government shutdown means federal agencies will be closed. Agencies such as the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency will go dark, and those in the chemical community who interact with them will be out of luck.

I believe it is highly unlikely we will have a government shutdown, but it is an interesting hopeful speculation. I especially take issue with her on the last part of her statement that chemical companies who interact with various government agencies "will be out of luck". This implies that chemical companies have some advantage in dealing with the federal government. The reverse is true. Every aspect of those agencies is a negative controlling factor. Their elimination would be helpful to society in general.

More specifically, the National Science Foundation would be unable to continue its grant program of taxpayer money to University professors for research, which is of little or no significance to the public. A shutdown of the Department of Energy would mean that there would be no restrictions for drilling and production of oil on federal lands. Finally, it would stop the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing its daily restrictive rules concerning operations of industry.

Too bad that we will not have a government shutdown, it could be very favorable to the redevelopment of the country, in spite of the negative implications of Susan Morrissey.

In that same article, Secretary of Defense Panetta was quoted as, "I think that there's an attitude that governing isn't necessarily good politics, that gridlock and confrontation is good politics. And I think we pay a price for price for that." I completely take issue with that statement. We have been traveling headlong down the wrong path of government control, with its increased size. It is past time for a rebirth of freedom.

We Need a Less Controlling Federal Government

In the January 28 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, Susan Morrisey discusses the financial problems of the federal government. She covers the basic attitude of Congress kicking the can down the road on the national debt limitation and inability to develop an appropriate budget.

However, she says that most of this is not particularly applicable to science. In spite of that comment, she also says that, "A government shutdown means federal agencies will be closed. Agencies such as the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency will go dark, and then those in the chemical community who interact with them will be out of luck".

A government shutdown is unlikely, but it is an interesting speculation. I take issue with her on the last part of her statement that chemical companies "who interact with them will be out of luck". This implies that chemical companies have some advantage in dealing with the federal government. The reverse is true. Every aspect of those government agencies is a negative controlling factor. Their elimination would be helpful to society in general.

More specifically, the National Science Foundation would be unable to continue its grant program of taxpayer money to University professors for research which is of little significance or damaging to the public. A shutdown of the Department of Energy would mean that there are no restrictions for exploration and production of oil on federal lands. Finally, it would stop the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing its daily restrictive rules concerning operations of industry.

Too bad that we will not have a government shutdown. It could be very favorable to the development of the country, in spite of the negative implication implied by Susan Morrisey.

In that same article, Secretary of Defense Panetta was quoted as, "I think that there's an attitude that governing isn't necessarily good politics, that gridlock and confrontation is good politics. And I think we pay a price for that." I completely take issue with that statement. We have been traveling headlong down the wrong path in excessive government control, and it is past time for confrontation to change that program.

Disabled Cruise Ship

     Four thousand passengers and crew were stranded in the Caribbean for several days, when a Carnival Lines cruise ship lost propulsion and many ancillary services, because of an engine room fire.
     I heard on Fox News yesterday that Congress is considering some action to avoid this happening again. How power-hungry is Congress and what happened to common sense?
     There was no indication that the problem was caused by terrorism or the action of a foreign power, and it should not be assumed that the owners/operators of Carnival Lines and the public are complete dunderheads..
     Some of the passengers enjoyed the diversion in spite of the hardship. Others said they would never take another cruise, especially on Carnival.
     It can be reasonably assumed that the Carnival owners/operators are reasonably astute and want to stay in business to make a profit. If the balance of the negative comments is likely to affect negatively their bottom line (profit), they will surely be looking into the situation in great detail and making appropriate corrections, so that the likelihood of it ever happening again is reasonably remote, no matter what Congress thinks or does.
     Congress must learn to take care of the people's business for which they have been elected and not to meddle with matters which are automatically controlled by market forces. The best way to teach Congress this lesson is by you advising your representatives what you think about the subject and anything related to it.

Scientific Immigration Reform II

    In an earlier blog, I referred to Sen. Hatch's bill to increase the availability of scientists in the US through immigration. Sen. Hatch's bill included a provision for state grants to educate others. My point was that it seemed unnecessary to spend taxpayer money for training people, when we could just allow already trained people to enter our country.
     Anonymous CJ responded to my blog as follows:
    "As you point out, there are many unemployed scientists these days. In a significant way, that misses the important point of the fit of talent to the market need. If the fit were good, we would not have the shortage of talent that currently exists. You certainly know that the skills of many unemployed scientists and engineers are obsolete with respect to the current market. That is the main reason they are unemployed. It is no secret to successful scientists and engineers that keeping skills current is an absolute necessity".
     I agree with CJ that since we have unemployed scientists in a market where there seems to be a shortage of scientifically trained people, the unemployed are not properly trained. I also agree with CJ that scientists and engineers must keep their skills current, but I go further in stating that such is the responsibility of the individuals, not the state to supply funds for any further education.

Scientific Immigration Reform

     There is a small segment of immigration reform which tends to go relatively unnoticed. It involves US visas for foreign citizens with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics training taken abroad or at US universities.
     Sen. Orin Hatch of Utah has proposed increasing the number of visas for those foreign nationals. The impetus comes from American technology companies, who claim they have difficulty in filling positions with appropriately trained persons. This is in spite of the fact that there are already a significant number of unemployed American scientists.
     I have no objection to increasing the number of scientists on American soil, either foreign or American, but one aspect of Sen. Hatch's bill troubles me. It includes another expenditure of federal funds to states to support science education and re-train unemployed workers. If bringing already trained foreign scientists to the US solves the problem of apparent shortage, why would we need to spend taxpayer money educating others?
     If for some reason the American public finds it objectionable to have a number of foreign scientists employed in the US, why not have an amendment to the bill requiring that all green card (visa) holders must apply for American citizenship and be accepted within five years or return to their home countries.
     Not mentioned in the Chemical and Engineering News article of February 6 is the matter of employment by governmental or private organizations, which are engaged in defense work requiring confidentiality. Scientific positions in those organizations should always be reserved for American citizens. While we have had difficulty with allegiance of some American citizens, it is fairly obvious that difficulties could be e exacerbated with non-American citizens in those same responsibiliti