Friday, September 22, 2006


I cannot. No one can "make" a teacher. The ability to teach is a gift. I can "make" or at least teach someone how to deliver lectures, how to provide information to others in a format that is conducive to learning but the true teacher, the one with the gift is born with that gift. Look at history. Look at your own past. There were those who could provide information to you and there were those who "touched" your mind, who brought you to the edge.

So what happened to teachers today? The system began to fall apart in the mid-1970s with the advent of the "right to an education" and the requirements that everyone who wanted to go to college be allowed to do so. Admissions requirements were lowered and standards dropped. Much of this was in response to the ill-conceived idea that the admission requirements were based on white, male concepts. In order to be "fair", the requirements were lowered to the point where today, a college degree is possibly not even equivalent to a high school diploma of 30 years ago. What an affront to the intelligent!! We expect less of you cause you're not quite as good as we are. Isn't the system more racist today than ever before?

Some claim there is so much more to know today. I say bull hockey. The basics of math, most science, soils studies, political studies, reading and writing have not changed in more than a century. There are new tools such as the automated typewriter/storage cabinet, fondly called the personal computer. But if you can't learn to be proficient with a computer in less than a week, maybe you should go back to sweeping streets.

Once someone is truly educated, that person becomes able to take him or herself beyond what is presented in the schools and universities. The educational system should provide the basic building blocks to knowledge, i.e. reading and 'riting and 'rithmetic skills, and teach the people how everything we do, we do in order to communicate with each other and that the reason we do thing a certain way is because long ago, somebody said so. Why are the symbol (1) and name, one, meaningful? Because somebody somewhere said so. That same symbol and name could just as easily have a different meaning. The meaning is not holy. The meaning is man-derived. Knowledge is about communication, nothing more, nothing less.

I say, if you can't handle the competititon, too bad. If you can't complete on the same level as white males, crawl in a corner and cry but do not destory that which produced the greatest advancements the world has known. It takes effort to learn. And learning requires some modicum of intellect.

Everyone has the right to obtain knowledge unimpeded. No one has the right to an education in which one is taught by others. Education is a privilege that must be earned through concerted efforts.

Some say those who can do and those who can't teach. Possibly. But I insist that this "truism" is limited to those who can do neither. IMO, those who can teach have moved out of the field because of the pressures and interference by the government. The rewards are too limited in today's money-driven world. Maybe because education is perceived as a right, education is not seen in its true value. And colleges and universities no longer educate. They train. Look closely at the curricula. It is a training program.

To be educated implies much more than simply knowing alot about a specific field. It means knowing about all there is to know.

Just a ramble!


Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Dude, Am I sick and tired of it !!!!!!

Green house gas emissions. Global warming. Carbon dioxide.

Before you decide to crap on my parade, let me warn you. I am a PhD with a specialty in and 30+ years experience in environmental chemistry.

Now, what it the number one (numero uno) green house gas?

If you answered carbon dioxide you are WRONG!!!!!!

Methane is about 100x more effective at holding heat than carbon dioxide but methane ain't the correct answer either.

The number one green house gas is: dihydrogen monoxide

Yes, you heard me, plain old water.

Why do we point the finger at CO2? Because with 75% of the Earth covered in water, who would try to limit water emissions? Who would try to make people feel bad about destroying the planet with water emissions?

At any given time, there are about 824 billion tons of carbon in the atmosphere. In one year, ALL mankind releases about 6 billion tons, which is about 0.8% of what is there all the time.

The oceans are sinks to 45,000 billion tons which provides us with a partitioning ratio of 45000/824 or around 55. So for every 56 tons of carbon released into the atmosphere, 1 stays there and 55 tons are absorbed into the oceans when equilibrium is reached. What is not included in this equation are the kinetics (the rate)?

However some rudimentary calculations based on the claimed change of CO2 in the atmosphere and the volume of the atmosphere would indicate that NONE, not one atom, of the carbon released by mankind has been removed from the atmosphere by the cycles of the planet.

Could that happen? Not likely.

But then all those smart people (chasing the money) say differently.