Posts Tagged Science
IS DONALD TRUMP’S “PLAN” TO PRESIDE OVER THE DEMISE OF AMERICAN TECHNOLOGICAL EXCELLENCE, AS WE KNOW IT?
Since January 20th, I have been trying to figure-out just what Donald Trump’s Agenda is. Does he even have a Plan? Donald seems to have a very limited attention span, and his conceptual capability seems limited to that which he already “knows“ to be true. Unfortunately, he doesn’t seem to realize that many of his actions might have equal, and opposite reactions! Again, what is his Plan for America?
This morning, a friend pointed-out that Trump is taking credit for Saudi Arabia breaking ties with Qatar, for having relationships with terrorists. Hmm! Doesn’t Donald realize that the U. S. has both its Central Command, and its Air Force Central Command Headquarters, located just west of Doha, Qatar?
After Donald Trump held his tongue on his recent visit to Riyadh, and after he kowtowed to King Salman, the Saudi King gave him some sort of award, perhaps for praising the Arabs. But, doesn’t Trump know Saudi Arabia is the chief exporter of Wahhabism, one of the most extreme forms of Islam, which can also lead to terrorism? And, doesn’t he know that 15 of the 19 terrorists, who used jetliners as weapons on 9/11, were also Saudi Nationals?
It is quite disturbing that Trump proposes to slash 31% from the State Department Budget. State partially fund programs, which help offset the impact of dire poverty and religious fanaticism–two key factors in civil unrest and the rise in terrorism. Secretary of Defense James Mattis, when he learned that State would be slashed, said: “I’m going to need more bullets.” Every dollar spent by State reduces the need for several dollars on Defense!
Can we really deny helping the residents of impoverished nations to: fight malaria and tuberculosis; inoculate peasants against various diseases; provide family planning and prenatal care; empower women. to reduce crimes against them; and provide clean water and sewer systems in rural areas. There is no reason why America shouldn’t help the Peoples of these regions, when we can!
And today, Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, while appearing before a Senate Committee, couldn’t even explain what would become of our nation’s Public School System, which Donald Trump also expects to cut. Should’t we make the vital investment in Education to prepare the students of today, for the jobs of tomorrow? And, that should begin with Early Childhood Education; because, that’s where future success starts!
Donald Trump’s opting-out of the Paris Accords didn’t surprise me either, since he has been doing the bidding of the Mega-Billionaires–and not the American People–all along! They wish to de-regulate all industry; but, the fossil fuels appear to be highest on their list. And, this is a horrific situation, with the largest economy, and the second-biggest polluter, taking the Cheap and Dirty way out its environmental responsibility!
And when Donald Trump takes his rightful seat, among the “Leaders” of the only two other nations who failed to sign the Paris Accords—Presidents Bashar Assad, of Syria, and Daniel Ortega, of Nicaragua—he will truly be in his element, indeed! In essence, they will be telling the world to just Fuck-Off!
Traditionally, America has been a bastion of technological innovation, with our combination of: government funding; venture capital; academic excellence and entrepreneurial expertise. In years past, this government funded “assembly line”, has led to discoveries, such as: ENIAC, the first general-purpose computer; TV; the PC; the Internet, mapping of the Human Genome, GPS, etc. And, such discoveries and innovations spawn new industries—and thousands of high-paying jobs.
Since his Announcement on the Paris Accords, last week, Donald Trump has chosen to Isolate America from the world, at large. That will impart our commitment to education, as well as our global excellence in science and technology. What bright student from overseas would want to study, let’s say, Engineering in the U. S., when the most-respected professors are moving overseas, in search of research funding? As a result, we may very well see a rapid decline at our various technology hubs. So, is this really Donald Trump’s Plan, to Make America Irrelevant Again?
Donald Trump frequently proclaims that he is protecting or saving the American People. His earlier racist views, in signing two executive orders, which banned travelers from six Muslim-majority countries, were rightfully rebuked by several Federal Courts. Part of his reasoning was “to protect the American People”.
Then, on his recent trip to Europe, Donald made a fool out of himself by suggesting that most NATO countries owed money to the American People; which is not the case, since those nations actually underfunded their own respective Defense Budgets. How ignorant that was to suggest they “owe us” for what they did, or did not do, to their respective budgets! And then again, in his recent Rose Garden charade, he invoked the asinine “saving the American People money”, when he announced that he would Opt-Out of the Paris Accords on Global Climate Change.
When I think of Climate Change, the first thing that I think of is: Fossil Fuels—oil, gas and coal. In a previous post, I wrote that James Black, Exxon’s Senior Scientist, addressed the company’s Executive Committee, back in 1977, and he stated: “… there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels.”
Over the past two years, every nation of the world, except for Nicaragua and Syria, had agreed to sign onto the Paris Accords, some 40 years, after Exxon, and their fossil fuel colleagues , had realized that they were probably contributing to Global Climate Change. The mega-billionaires, who profit handsomely from the oil, gas and coal industries, leave the global society to pay to clean-up the mess that they have profited from.
The two men who have profited most from the Fossil Fuel Industry are Charles and David Koch. Koch Industries, which has been active in each of the three fossil fuels, had also moved more recently into chemicals, mining and finance. Several decades back, the Koch’s had formed a group of the very wealthiest Americans to lobby against: the Paris Accords; EPS rules on clean air; mining regulations; workplace safety rules; and offshore drilling, among others.
This Group contributed handsomely to Donald Trump’s so-called “”Self-Financed” Presidential Campaign. And Donald, for his part, seems to have fallen in line, by advocating for: huge tax-cuts for the top two percent; the repeal of the Dodd-Frank Act, which was passed in order to rein-in the banks after 2008; continue to freeze the Minimum-Wage; and disrupt all Social Safety Net Programs, such as Affordable Health Care.
So, to paraphrase the old cliche: With Donald Trump “protecting” us, we don’t need enemies!
NOTE: For anyone interested in reviewing the Global Climate Change issue more closely, and the reported cover-up, The Climate Deception Dossiers, Internal Fossil Fuel Industry Memos Reveal Decades of Corporate Disinformation, produced by the Union of Concerned Scientists, are linked.
THE TRANSGENDER POTTY BROUHAHA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH REST ROOMS, AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION!
NOTE: With minor changes, this is a repeat of a prior post, which was first published on March 1, 2016. I have tweaked it slightly, in order clarify some points, and to update it for the ignorance of the Trump White House.
The equality of the Constitutional Rights of all Americans—regardless of age, sex, race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc.—are guaranteed under our Constitution. As some Republican-led states have tried, in various and devious ways, to circumvent these rights, the U. S. Supreme Court has reaffirmed them over and over again. But these ignorant attempts, costly to the taxpayers, continue on.
Usually such legislation has been initiated by individual states, and anointed with seemingly benign titles; however, those are merely dog whistles to excite the political base. In fact, the true intent of such laws is often quite different from advertised. Titles such as “Pastor Protection” or “Women’s Protection”, or suggesting that they are intended to protect small businesses, are really smoke screens.
Such laws can only be intended to deny specific constitutional rights of others. here can be no other relevance! Who’s going to sue a clergymen whose religion does not condone same-sex marriage for not performing a ceremony? Or suing a caterer or pastry shop that refuses to provide services for an LGBT event? Or a woman getting an abortion without having considered the various implications ahead of time?
This month (March 2016), North Carolina and Mississippi passed laws that require transgender persons to use rest rooms, in schools and public buildings, that confirm with the sex noted on their birth certificates. (Who carries a Birth Certificate?) Now, consider how asinine this is. Would a woman who was born a man look for a urinal in the Ladies Room? Likewise, would a man who was born a woman really try to use a urinal in the Mens Room? In each case, they would go into a stall to…(well) GO.
These states have already seen major companies decide to cancel expanding facilities there. Similarly, bills such as the current “Potty Bill” have resulted in major sports leagues and national conventions shifting their biggest events to other states. And as expected, individual tourism is seeing a fall-off, as well.
Such legislation truly serves no purpose! As noted, there is nothing to see here! The LGTB Community is not a haven for sexual perverts, no more than the general population. And unfortunately, the larger cities, which tend to be more open-minded, will generally be the losers when corporate expansion, sporting events, conventions, and tourism will be lost! So, the areas that are trying to do the right thing are the ones that pay the price—for Bigotry.
More recently, the Trump Regime has suggested that such laws should be left up to the individual states; however, that is a lame attempt “not to take a stand”! Just considering the past inane attempts to pass racist and bigoted legislation, by the individual states, just points-out what a patchwork quilt of laws, with conflicting values, America will have! But, as the original post notes, isn’t “Who Goes Where” really a question of Reality?
Donald Trump has a reputation as someone with a hair-trigger, ready to sue someone— anyone—at a moment’s notice. The real estate tycoon even reportedly sued the local airport authority in Palm Beach County, Florida; because, departing aircraft, under certain weather conditions, flew right over hie Mar-a-Lago Estate. But this time, Mar-a-Lago faces an even greater danger than mere jet noise—the Rising Seas!
The various barrier islands, up and down the Atlantic Coast, are a natural buffer to protect the Mainland from the sea. But, Americans have built palatial estates, vacation homes, hotels, and condominium complexes all along them. And every year or two, the expense of such dangerous living becomes greater and greater, when one considers: ever-expensive insurance; property taxes, including beach erosion; home repairs due to the damage done by the elements. Also, the protection that sea walls and pumps provide, on an island, can be limited.
The linked article, from The Boston Globe, shows aerial photography of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Estate, both currently and at various projected stages in the future. Even if Donald, age 70, intends to leave the property to his children, the value may very well be plummeting by the time they take over. And remember, the demand for palatial estates, as the sea is threatening, will surely be limited. Open house…Anyone?
The Globe article cites the differences in opinions that some of the Trump uber-wealthy neighbors have. While some have literally read the seawater on the wall; others believe, now that Donald was elected, he will make things better. Perhaps, he can stick his finger in the non-existent dyke?
The Globe article is linked, as follows: http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/01/13/rising-seas-threaten-jewel-trump-real-estate-empire/bsleB73TesDoLcVxJBK9LP/story.html
Our supermarket, with stores all over Florida, stocks shelves according to the store-specific demographic—elderly, families with children, Hispanic, Asian, West Indian, Kosher, etc—which they know from what products are regularly purchased in each one. Likewise, my computer distracts me with unwanted pop-up ads, for products based on the web sites I frequent. So, what has the established purveyors of global health statistics been doing with those numbers, to solve life-or-death problems globally? Apparently, not much!
Christopher Murray earned his Ph.D. in Medical Health Economics from Oxford, and a Medical Degree from Harvard. Dr. Murray, however, neither practices medicine, nor does he even follow the stock market. While researching his Dissertation at Oxford, he realized how sorely inconsistent, and useless, many of the statistics amassed by the various institutional bureaucracies actually were.
The focus was mostly limited to Early Childhood (ages 0 to 5) and Maternal Deaths. The World Health Organization and World Bank statistics for Life Expectancy for Men in Congo, for instance, between 1980 and 1984, differed by 15 years, with similar discrepancies for other nations, as well. In another case, identical statistics for a particular disease were reported, for economically disadvantaged Somalia as it was for Sweden, which has one of the world’s best health care systems. My supermarket, on the other hand, knows shopping patterns and re-supply needs, for each of its stores, and acts on them in order to enhance profits. Why not enhance Global Health?
It appears that political motives might be involved, such as maintaining an organization’s level of stature within the overall Global Health arena, perhaps, are of greatest importance. And focusing on Children’s Deaths might possibly make the fund-raising efforts much more engrossing. But, why raise the funds to collect the statistics and, then, fail to act effectively on them?
Also, wouldn’t the elimination, or even the control, of a particular global health problem, such as Small Pox, enable those resources to be shifted to other life-threatening diseases? Wasn’t that the original purpose—perhaps a long, long time ago—to collect meaningful data, analyze it, set realistic expectations, and get the data and the appropriate resources out to the field?
Dr. Christopher Murray, a New Zealander by birth, met Dr. Alan Lopez, an Australian, at WHO Headquarters, in Geneva, Switzerland, and they began a collaboration to bring some sense to the global health statistics field. They realized, however, that WHO would not be a suitable launching pad! Throughout the ensuing 30 years, Murray and Lopez have encountered considerable skepticism among some in the Establishment, primarily at WHO. But many other groups, within the global health care community, have embraced their ideas, and even promoted them to colleagues.
Besides expanding the data collection landscape beyond just Early Childhood and Maternal Deaths, Murray and Lopez also included Disabilities—illnesses which generally do not kill people—into their metric. Early on, Chris Murray had developed his own measure of heath, the Disability-Adjusted Life Years, or DALYs. The DALY reflects the average degree of health for a nation, from which Labor’s legitimate contribution to the GDP might be identified, as well as the potential future demand for health care services.
For instance, let’s assume that a 75 year-old person, in perfect health, is assigned a DALY of 75. (Apparently there was apparently nothing to adjust for.) Then, a similar-aged person, who developed a partially incapacitating illness, assigned a 20% disability rating at age 40, would have a DALY of 68 (40 + [80% of the remaining 35 years]). This metric is much more relevant to Labor and National Ministers of Public Health. (Also, the disability ratings would be updated regularly, by country.)
With their Global Burden of Disability metric in hand, Murray and Lopez began selling the on-line concept to National Ministers of Public Health. The fact that anyone—ministers, politicians or the general public—can access the data base, free of charge, (http://www.healthdata.org), means that the Public Health Ministers can more easily sell it to their colleagues, refute politicians’ objections, and encourage a buy-in by the general population.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation had provided initial funding, which began the (now) Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, at the University of Washington. The Gates Foundation had recently begun focusing on health care in impoverished nations, and its recognition of the importance of comprehensive statistical analysis in monitoring its funding, provided obvious legitimacy. The metric’s focus can also be narrowed to individual cities, or regions, as is currently the case for Seattle, Washington, as well as a few other areas.
Additionally, the benefits of education have been cited, time and again, in various areas, and it appears to very specifically have a direct correlation with health care—especially for women and girls. For instance, IHME has found that national health care seems to improve by ten percent with just one additional year of school, on average. When China had a stunning surge in its GDP of ten percent; however, that only improved health care by one percent.
Just yesterday, I went on to the WHO web site, and I noticed that it still doesn’t appear to have embraced the IHME’s GBD concept. In 2012, Dr. Richard Horton, Editor of the prestigious peer-review medical journal, “The Lancet”, suggested that Murray’s and Lopez’s GBD Metric is on a par with the Human Genome Project. And, then, he went on to say that: “Even Galileo was considered a radical in his time.”
NOTE: The compelling story of Dr. Christoper Murray, and his collaboration with Dr. Alan Lopez, is a compelling, and vitally, important one. It is eloquently told in “Epic Measures”, by Jeremy N. Smith.
Much of the political rhetoric spewed against Islamic State currently seems mostly based on the racist anti-Muslim agenda of certain politicians. The strategic planners in our Defense Department place ISIS toward the bottom of our potential National Security risks. Russia and China, by far, are at the very top of the Pentagon’s List of Risks.
Surely, terrorism will always be a risk in any peaceful country. It always has been, and always will! An advantage that we, in America, have is that our anti-terrorism activities are coordinated through one governmental entity, the FBI, as compared to 30 national defense entities across Europe. Also, the Muslim Community here is somewhat better assimilated. Again, terrorist attacks, by groups such as ISIS, are at the bottom of our Defense Department list of priorities.
The planning for Future Wars is coordinated by Deputy Secretary of Defense, Bob Work. The so-called “Third Offset Strategy”, is fully-integrated with the knowledge and cooperation of our allies. The First Offset (or Advantage) Strategy was initiated by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, in the 1950s, and it used nuclear power to compensate for the Soviet Union’s manpower advantage. At the height of the Cold War (1970s and 80s), the Second Offset Strategy emphasized: long-range, precision-guided weapons: stealth aircraft; and new intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities.
Currently, as our list of potential adversaries has increased, the Third Offset Strategy has classified our anticipated sources of danger as follows: Russia and China are the very highest priority; then Iran (an exporter of terrorism) and North Korea (only because Kim Jong-Un is unstable and has primitive nuclear weapons); and various rogue states and non-government organizations, such as ISIS, are at the bottom. Although they all pose dangers to America and our allies, it always are makes sense to prioritize risks.
Over the past fifteen years, as the U. S. military was distracted, fighting two wars, and depleting its Defense Budget, Russia and China were able to narrow the gap with our technological superiority. Both have grown their budgets substantially, increased their technology development programs, and they were able to observe both what our military did well, and notice its weaknesses. Also, their cyber-intel warriors were able to hack into our computers, and steal technology—saving themselves time and money.
The T-O Strategy will include more coordination with our NATO Allies, as well as encourage them to increase their own defense budgets to the agreed-upon two percent of their respective GDPs. In the future, research will be mostly carried-out in a combination of academic and commercial labs, rather than in government facilities. Future weapon development will be developed and funded similar to how Boeing and SpaceX have taken on the mission of re-supplying the International Space Station with the rocket systems, which they funded and developed.
Besides traditional battlefields, look for: greater use of miniature air, land and sea-based drones; continued stealth technology; ships with lower manpower requirements; advanced manufacturing, to include robotics and 3-D systems; and guided bomb and missile systems. Future wars will also make greater use of cyber-technology, not only in hacking to gain intelligence, but in jamming, providing false intelligence or even, planting viruses to incapacitate enemy systems. As in our daily lives, the advantages of digital technology can harm us when they become inoperable or malfunction.
Traditionally, the U. S. has had the unquestioned quickest and most comprehensive system of technology management, from development to useful application. That requires: a combination of government-funding, as necessary; a rational regulatory environment; and the coordination of academia and corporate management. It seems like Academia and Industry will be ready to go; but, the question is: Will Congress?
It has been 50 years since that first episode of the original Star Trek, “The Man Trap”, was first aired on NBC-TV, in September of 1966. The show was subsequently cancelled in 1969; however, it’s popularity only grew in syndication. Over the years, its loyal fan-base—Trekkies—never waned. And, the original cheesy version eventually gave way to several, more modern TV spin-offs, movies, board and video games, books, etc.
My young son, Andrew, told me as we watched it together, many, many, MANY times, in the 1980s, that the secret attraction was that it was based on actual science. Real science fiction! Sure, it used poetic license to enable the crew to walk on planets without helmets and restrictive suits. But, without that accommodation, the storyline would surely not have been effective.
Besides science, Star Trek addressed a myriad of other topics, which caused its viewers—the many loyal “Trekkies”—to actually think. Consider: Captain Kirk dealing with a veritable ”United Planets” of a crew, which included non-human members from other planets; the Save-the-Whales theme in one of the full-length movies; saving the life of a maniacal killer; and political/philosophical considerations regarding travel between time periods, such as the episode when Kirk and Spock visited a Nazi-controlled like planet, similar to America in the late 1940s.
The partnership between the Star Trek franchise and NASA (our Space Agency) is legendary among fans and agency employees alike. In fact, many of the scientists, and perhaps some astronauts, have said that the show was responsible for developing their interest in science, at an early age. Maybe they watch it today on the International Space Station!
There are a number of devices today, versions of which the average person first saw on Star Trek. For instance: the “Communicator”, that each of the crew wore, is a version of a smart phone; Captain Jean Luc Picard had a device similar to a computer pad in his ready room; the medical crew carried Tri-corders, a version of which is used today by some physicians, providing a patients’ vital signs; and 3-D printers which have been used like Replicators. Some other items are, no doubt. still in the works.
The show opens with a voice-over, spoken by Captain James T. Kirk (William Shatner): “Space, the Final Frontier. These are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise. Its 5-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no (wo)man has gone before.” To me, this establishes a real curiosity for the viewers’ own adventure, which surely will follow.
Now, my dilemma begins. I know how important Star Trek had been in awakening our son Andrew’s academic interests, not only in science, but in other subjects, as well. It also established a curiosity, his willingness to question what this all meant. Not just the What, but the How, Why and potential Final Outcome! How do I fight the urge to encourage my three and a half-year old grandson, Henry, to eventually become a Trekkie?
LIVE LONG AND PROSPER!