Anyone for Math and Science?

ARE WE SURE ABOUT THIS NEED?

"Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad. Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment."

Text from a current political candidate seeking to explain America's position as world guardian? Actually, no. The above text is part of President Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1961 Farewell Speech. People often ask why do we need to study history? Well, given the words above, it certainly appears that we haven't listened and learned much over the past 45 years. But, President Eisenhower's speech wasn't just about his lamenting the ongoing world conflicts. He was concerned about the Military Industrial Complex that America was building. Take a look at another snippet from his speech:

"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded."

Today's call for more math and science teachers does raise a curiosity. Certainly the country can use more doctors and other healthcare professionals but how many more technology engineers do we need? Most of that work is outsourced to much cheaper labor countries and is unlikely to return. Given the power of today's super computers, and the potential for even more powerful computers, math scholars can solve significant problems in less time and with less resources.

It would be prudent to follow the money trail to understand this political posturing. Reseach funding at major universities is largely from the Department of Defense. I would suspect that the second leading source of funds are coming from the pharmaceutical industry. Higher education claims it needs these funds to continue providing quality education.

It seems ironic that with the current administration's mentality (and in many parts of the country) that evolution is "bad science" but the creation of deadly bacteria or "bunker-busting" limited nuclear weapons are OK. How does a Christian Nation condone having the weapons ability to wipe out entire nations of people?

If the country needs more math and science students to address global warming, renewable energy sources or food for the poor and hungry, then let's push forward. If it's for unique ways to destroy people who are different from Americans, then lets revisit Eisenhower's warnings and educate our current group of politicians.

Random Thoughts

"DA NEWS"

1. Today, the President announced relaxed gasoline production environmental controls to help ease potential shortages. Commodity traders responded enthusiastically by lowering the upcoming gasoline contracts by 8 cents a barrel. If the move was to contain prices, let's see: prices are up around 50 cents in the last 30 days and today's cut was 8 cents. So, May will start at $3.25 instead of $3.33 per gallon. OK, thank you for your help.

2. Doesn't less environmental controls mean more pollution? Since healthcare costs are already out-of-control in the US, breathing thick, lung choking smog should help keep people in hospitals and not working (or vacationing with their new found 8 cents).

3. It's too bad the President's advisors who thought relaxed environmental controls was an answer don't read newspapers. If they did, they would see that people are using mass transit and buying 4-cylinder cars in greater numbers. This is the kind of response you would expect in a free market system. Make prices unreasonable and people will find a way to conserve. Of course, conservation doesn't help the oil companies continue building record profits.

4. Congress, here's a thought: take a large chunk of the oil companies' profits and make it available to states to pay for next winter's heating bills. (Don't pay 100% because people will abuse the gift.) Offer to pay at least 50% of each month's bills -- that way the working-poor won't have to decide between food and freezing.

5. Education is in the news again. This time it's about women and girls outperforming men and boys in the classroom. Well, duh! As long as America is fascinated with sports, scholastic and collegiate, men and boys will play games and not study. You can get a guy to give up his August to practice football all day for 2-3 weeks, but try to get the same kid to read a book, any book, even comic, everyday for 2 weeks. Women/girls: do well and excel -- you've got to be better than the men have been at running businesses and this country. Thanks to your maternal instincts, I'm sure the first thing you'll do is take care of domestic issues!

Thanks for reading.

The Buck Stops, er, Somewhere?

“Paralysis by Analysis”

Now there's an age old phrase and tactic used to slow decisions. It is hard to disagree with someone who states “we need more data in to minimize the chance of failure.” On the surface, you would suppose that this tactic could serve us well.
When data was limited, people made decisions based on preparation, experience and intuition. Today, the data is unending, leaving decisions to spin in a tight spiral waiting for the next round of data mining. Today, decisions are based on data that is quantifiable, objective and scientific. Or is it?
Recently we heard how ExxonMobil paid “scientists” to collect data to support their fossil-burning position on global warming. Merck has lost several civil verdicts about its documented safety of the drug Vioxx. High school seniors have received erroneous SAT scores that at the very least made them distraught and stressed. The US Department of Education paid media personalities to extol the potential value of their initiatives.
The problem is our own laziness. “Paralysis by analysis” isn’t a safeguard tactic, it is an excuse. We don’t want to upset our delicate, busy schedules to take the time needed to understand. We need to be as intrigued with data as we are with celebrities.
We need to study the data and understand how it was collected and analyzed, and most importantly, who funded the research. What value does this data have in moving our society forward? Once we understand the data, we need to act based on our ability to think.
We need to practice a “health sense of skepticism.” After “Huh?” our next question should be “Why?”
Published data is a guide, not an answer. But we don’t know the difference if we choose to stay uninformed. Currently, there is no widespread urgency to demand data that enhances our society or our needs. If you want proof, pick a topic and see where the data leads you. The buck stops somewhere and at sometime. Unfortunately, it may be after, “We didn’t see that one coming!”