Ralph Nader: Donald Trump, Trump Tower, and His Unprecedented Presidency

Photo by NeONBRAND on Unsplash

There is no denying the fact that each American is living through an unprecedented time in Presidential history.  I cannot think of any other time in history that our citizens have experienced the following leadership skills on a national stage: chaotic, dictatorial, and undemocratic.  There is no argument in favor of this divisiveness.  The blatant display of disrespect for the public office of the presidency is overwhelming.  Comedians refuse to have the President on their shows in fear of laughing and disrespecting the office (not Donald Trump).  I have been waiting to hear from Activist Ralph Nader on the subject.

Finally, I received the following letter in my email box this morning.  A newsletter sent out from Ralph Nader stating the following about these dangerous and unprecedented times:

From Trump Tower to Dictatorial Trump Power Over Law

Donald Trump is “dumb as a rock” (to use his phrase) when it comes to the programs and the policies of the federal government agencies over which he is allegedly presiding. However, when it comes to defending and expanding his own political power, Trump is shameless and profoundly cunning.

Trump turns accurate appraisals of himself into accusations that he levies at others. Earlier this month, he questioned whether Joe Biden “is mentally fit to be president.” (Read more here)Trump regularly turns appraisals of himself into accusations against others.

But Trump has found way to spread his toxicity beyond his lying tweets. He has carefully developed formidable barricades to shield himself from the gathering storm regarding his countless impeachable offenses and other serious misbehaviors.

Trump’s remarks, decisions, and asides reveal his plans to stay in office. Trump heaps praise and extra funding on the military. In his travels, Trump likewise incessantly praises the police regardless of the situations there.  Trump has openly said these constituencies are the core foundation against his adversaries that will keep him in office. His White House will keep the military and the police very well endowed.

He also makes sure that big business is happy with him. Some of the bosses are getting anxious about the uncertainty associated with Trump’s use of tariffs and his caustic remarks about leaders of the countries where U.S. companies do business. However, Trump knows that as long as he cuts corporate taxes; deregulates health, safety, and economic requirements on Wall Street; and continues the crony capitalism of subsidies, handouts, and bailouts; the corporate bosses will continue to pay obeisance to Trump.

Manipulating the mass media is child’s play for Trump. He taunts them about how they have to give him top billing because of the profitable ratings his performances brings them. Some in the mass media, nonetheless, expose his wrongdoing with thorough features. Trump, though irritated, ignores these exposés and repels them like water off a duck’s back. It’s all “fake news,” he shouts. His approval polls, though lower than previous presidents, stay firm. So far Trump has faced no real consequences from the revelations of his misdeeds.

The courts, meanwhile, are Donald’s Trump card for endless delays. Who has been sued as president more than Trump? Over two and a half years into his term, litigation against Trump grinds on. Nobody knows how long these court actions will take, what with Trump’s delay tactics and appeals. The top appeal is to the Supreme Court which he believes is 5 to 4 for him on just about everything relating to runaway presidential power and immunities. Trump has appointed 146 judges while in office, including two Supreme Court justices. Trump’s chosen Supreme Court justices are partisan actors who will suit his purposes nicely—it is as if they came from “central casting” for him. Trump has declared unlimited presidential pardon powers, musing that he could even pardon himself.

Labor unions are another big joke to Trump. As they decline, Trump reminds the pro-Democratic Party union leaders that many of their rank and file members voted for him. A troublingly large minority of union workers—over a third— defected to Trump’s camp in 2016, enough to make the union leaders skittish about seriously confronting him.

That leaves the Congress with which he toys. The Republicans are frightened chickens in a coop, peering out at the insatiable Fox. When they look back at their place in history, they’ll have to squint. Sycophants all, except for the late Rep. Walter Jones and Rep. Justin Amash.

As for the Democrats, Trump is blocking subpoenas and orders for witnesses to testify. Trump is also turning down major demands for documents from several House Congressional Committees. Exercising their constitutional authority to oversee the executive branch, the Committee Chairs are filing one law suit after another. Trump laughs and tells his attorneys to keep stonewalling and appealing—which can mean years. That’s how he operated during his sordid failed business career.

Donald Trump, selected by the Electoral College, is daring the Democrats to impeach him. He knows Democrats are divided and can use the Republican dominated Senate as an excuse for inaction. Of course impeachment is a constitutional duty for the House, not a simple political calculation. It is certainly warranted for the most impeachable president in American history.

Trump is thumbing his nose at Democrats daily, blocking oversight, allocating appropriated funds by executive dictate, brazenly freezing enforcement the laws or revoking regulations that protect the health, safety, and economic wellbeing of the American people, enriching himself through emoluments, and also casting aside the Constitution and the rule of law regarding his military and foreign policy aggressions.

Trump has neutralized our country’s checks and balances and separation of powers, including judicial accountability. He adds to his monarchal presidency by unleashing the Republican Party’s suppression of the vote and other electoral shenanigans.

If the law ever catches up to Trump, he has many toadies who are willing to “wag the dog” distractions. They are his war-hawk on steroids, national security advisor lawless John Bolton and the militaristic Secretary of State Michael Pompeo who travels the world threatening half of it. The new Secretary of Defense, from the Raytheon Corporation, presents no restraint in contrast to his predecessor Jim Mattis, cashiered by Trump.

If Trump wins, America loses. The outcome is up to you in November 2020. Be alert and prepared for tumultuous upheavals should Trump lose by a narrow margin.

I have said all along since the President took office that I have nothing against Donald Trump, the civilian.  Although, I do have a problem with the fact that he does not have any experience in local, State, and Federal politics.  Further, the public has learned over the last few years of his real business tactics, which consists of bullying, lying, and cheating workers out of wages for work done.



This culmination of disturbing facts coupled with the lessons learned on the world stage over the last 2 1/2 years makes him an unfit person to remain in the Oval Office.  He is a threat to the civilized democracy which existed before he entered the presidency.  Last but not least, he needs to be held accountable for his wrongdoings before and during holding office. 

Related Blog Posts:

Ralph Nader: Nader pays tribute to old Republican Paul Findley

Ralph Nader: How has Boeing avoided testifying in front of Congress for the 737 Max Airplane disasters?

 Ralph Nader: "What and Who Gave Us Trump?"


Ralph Nader: Youth Can Change Corporate View of Climate Crisis

What Are Activist Ralph Nader's Opinions On Radio News Organizations Such As NPR Or PBS?

Over 600 Environmental Groups write letter to Congress to phase out fossil fuels


Ralph Nader: Post Election -- Next Step -- Open Up The Existing Secretive Congress


Ralph Nader: Warner Slack - Doctor for the People Forever


Ralph Nader: An Open Letter to Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon


Ralph Nader: MAGA is really MADA?


Ralph Nader: Has Corruption Become Institutionalized?


Ralph Nader Says 10 Million People Could Change Healthcare Policy - That Few?


Ralph Nader Suggests To Consumers Reading 'Consumer Reports' Before Impulse Buying


Thoughts: Ralph Nader On A Cashless Economy

Surprise! American Consumers will pay for Chinese Tariffs!

President Trump says that China will pay for Tariffs along with his staff. The problem is that his logic does not line up with the outcome of a protracted Trade War with China.

Photo by chuttersnap on Unsplash

In a perfect world, there would be no need for ‘Free Trade.’ Each country would pay its fair share on goods that are exported and imported into their respective country. That is the dimension in which President Trump’s current trade war with China and other countries are living in at present.

The problem is that the world (i.e., dimension) in which the rest of the United States citizens live within along with the rest of the world is quite different. And the aspect about which I speak in which we live in is not perfect. Although, for decades, the United States has benefited greatly from ‘free trade.’ Even members of the Republican party favor ‘free trade.’

Why then does President Trump not favor ‘free trade’?

Deficits Are Good?

According to our President, he feels like the United States is running a deficit due to the prolonged effects of ‘free trade’ over the decades, which is true. What is left out of the conversation is those deficits exist for a reason. Further, a country which is not running a debt is not better off than one which is. That fact was conveyed to me by a professor of Government Studies over 20 years ago. I will always remember that discussion. A deficit is healthy to a large extent. What?

In light of this fact, what does President Trump hope to get out of this trade war from China?

The answer has been an overwhelmingly — ‘win’ by our President. What does a ‘win’ mean? Hopefully, a win does not mean that the average American consumer pays more for their items received from imported goods. That appears to be the direction in which we are headed as a nation with the current Trade War.

Tariffs Are Here!

Amid the current disaster, the new plan which is being reported by various news agencies is that the Trump administration would like to hold off tariffs until after Christmas. That is nice of the President.

Reporting by the Washington Post has uncovered the truth of how tariffs negatively impact consumers:

The White House announced Tuesday that the president’s latest tariffs on China would be delayed on many popular items like cellphones, laptops and strollers. The 10 percent tax would not go into effect until Dec. 15, effectively ensuring retailers can import goods for the holidays before the tariffs take effect.

Trump himself told reporters the delay is to ensure consumers don’t face higher costs this Christmas. Here are his full remarks:

“We are doing this for the Christmas season, just in case some of the tariffs would have an impact on U.S. consumers. So far they’ve had virtually none. The only impact has been that we’ve collected almost $60 billion from China, compliments of China. But just in case they might have an impact on people, what we’ve done is we’ve delayed it so they won’t be relevant for the Christmas shopping season,” Trump told reporters before he flew to western Pennsylvania.

Not all consumers will get to wait until after the Christmas season to avoid paying the extra taxes for imported goods. I saw a recent example at the university in our purchasing department. Our purchaser ordered a digital part from a U.S. based company. I was surprised to see the following tariff applied to the piece from China — given the promises made by our President over the last year.

Below are two images of a receipt of a recent purchase from a U.S. corporation who outsources their parts from China:

CSUN Chemistry Department

In the image on the left, the breakdown of costs lists the ‘Tariff Amount’ of $2.13 on a charge of $21.25 — bill. Whereas in the description of the part ordered, the ‘COO’ — Country of Origin has China listed. The last line on the breakdown of parts states, “Section 301 Tariff.” That is direct evidence of a tariff passed onto consumers from China.

Tariff Talk?

Over the last year, discussions have been brewing among economists and business executives about the growing concern of the cost of tariffs being passed onto consumers. In closing the overt debate, I thought that providing three short videos below would be welcomed. Especially, given where we have come as a nation throughout the emerging Trade War.

The first video is an interview from April of 2018 on MSNBC’s Morning Joe with guests on the announcement of 25% on tariffs. To which China retaliated overnight with a list of tariffs on goods coming to America:

In the discussion above, the point to note that the announcement did not mean that taxes would be a reality. The above commentary was speculation of the impact on Americans with proposed tariffs.

What was mindboggling was the range of American goods which would be negatively impacted by tariffs (in either direction), which include Aircraft parts (Boeing), Soybeans, farming (non-citrus, nuts, hog, pig, etc.), manufacturing(dry food, ethyl alcohol, iron, steel pipe, aluminum, etc.). That list alone would be damaging to American businesses.

Move forward a year, and the next interview is with CNN’s Brooke Baldwin and President and CEO of the American Apparel & Footwear Association Rick Helfenbein:

Rick Helfenbein is ‘freaked out’ over the potential threat of tariffs with China. He likened the risk to the second sailing of the Titanic ship — except that, in the current case, the icebergs (threats) are known. And can be avoided in the case of the ongoing trade war. The apparel business lookout is months in advance — with purchases occurring way in advance.

Additionally, CEO Rick Helfenbein points out that when apparel manufacturers move out of a given region, the ability to have them reverse course is practically impossible.

The last video is with CEO Steve Madden of Steve Madden apparel. He was interviewed by MSNBC’s Ari Melber as shown below:

Steve Madden clearly states that American consumers are feeling increasing prices due to the trade war. He says that cheap manufacturing will not return to the United States. Even if the trade war is ‘won’ by the Trump administration. The truth is that goods which are coming to the United States would switch to other countries (i.e., Mexico, India, etc.) rather than China.

Bring Jobs Back To America

The notion of bringing jobs back to America is a falsehood. Unemployed workers from manufacturing jobs lost overseas should be performing a higher-skilled job here in America. Instead of wanting to perform an old job, get trained to perform a higher-skilled (i.e., higher demand) position.

President Trump should let go of the idea of ‘winning’ trade war with China. The longer he holds onto the plan; the more America will lose in the process. Don’t take that idea from me; read all about it all over the news.

Related Blog Posts:

China Raises Ante In Trade War With Threat Of Cutting Off Rare Metals To U.S.

"Trade Not Aid" -- A Shout out from Farmers to President Trump again

Former FDA Director Asked Congress For Clarity Regarding CBD in Food Products


Soybean Farmers Are Storing Too Much Soybean, Although Chemical Industry Is Greenlighting Trade Deals?


How many cows are needed to generate 50,000 tons of beef exports?


Trade War Hurts Farmers -- From The Farmer's Mouth Directly


"Trade Not Aid" -- The Answer For Trade War!


Parameters: Tariffs Affect Trade In Both Directions -- In And Out Of The USA


Parameters: Steel And Aluminum Tariffs Are Not Isolated - They Are Tied To Trading Of Other Vital Goods

1) Dimensional Analysis Of Statistics And Large Numbers - Index Of Blog Posts


2) Science Topics, Thoughts, and Parameters Regarding Science, Politics, And The Environment!

Be the Best that You can be

                                      Photo by sydney Rae on Unsplash

Are you falling into a rut?



Turn that frown upside down!



You do not need to compete against anyone except yourself in life.



Be the best that you can be each day.



Strive for the best each day.



Have an attitude of gratitude each day.



Why would you want to strive for anything but the best within yourself?



That does not mean stress yourself out trying to ‘win’ at every chance.



Stay humble each day.



Smile at least twice per hour each day (even if you have to force yourself too).



Don’t take yourself too seriously on a daily basis.



Define what a ‘win’ means for you each day.



Do not set unrealistic goals.



Set goals which work for you.



Your timeline does not need to match other people’s timelines in life.



You define what is the best that you can be on a daily basis in life.



Compete against yourself instead of others each day.



Above all, strive to be the best person that you can be each day!








Index of past blog sites:

1) Dimensional Analysis Of Statistics And Large Numbers - Index Of Blog Posts


2) Science Topics, Thoughts, and Parameters Regarding Science, Politics, And The Environment!

Ralph Nader: Nader pays tribute to old Republican Paul Findley

Source: Washington Post

Democracy is filled with a wide range of beliefs and opinions.  The ability to hold a belief that is contradictory to another person's part of the foundation on which it stands.  Not only to hold but to have the right to freely express that view too.  The citizens place politicians into the office to fight and make decisions along with laws and regulations for all of the citizens in the United States.



Lately, each of the two major political parties has been acting in a disgraceful manner.  The Republicans are straying from all the morals and values in which they believe in.  That is why Ralph Nader's memories of Republican Congressman Paul Findley is so reminiscent of times when politicians actually stood for something and fought for democracy.   

Ralph Nader wrote a piece about Paul Findley which is worth reading below:

They Don’t Make Republicans Like the Great Paul Findley Anymore!

In his 22 years in Congress (1960 – 1982), Paul Findley achieved a sterling record for fundamental positions, proposals and breakthroughs that revealed a great man, pure and simple. He never stopped learning and applying his knowledge to advance the right course of action, regardless of political party, ideology or pressure from various groups.

Findley, a courteous, kindly, ex-World War II navy veteran passed away earlier this month at the age of 98 in his home town of Jacksonville, Illinois. The District he represented was the one Abraham Lincoln was elected from for his one term in the House of Representatives. Findley was a student of Lincoln’s life, and embraced Lincoln’s view that “a politician should be willing to reject outmoded ways of thinking that no longer fit the times.”

Findley was a thoughtful, studious legislator with a superb sense of justice.  He was an early civil rights champion. His opposition to runaway Presidential war-making was reflected in his leading support for the War Powers Act of 1973, though he wanted stronger curbs on the White House’s unilateral militarism.

Having been a journalist and owner of a small-town newspaper – the Pike Press, before going to Congress in 1960, Findley used his writing skills to explain issues regarding agricultural policies, a foreign policy of diplomacy and peace, and nuclear arms controls. He was an outspoken early opponent of the Vietnam War and a critic of the Pentagon’s chronically wasteful spending. He was not a “press-release” legislator, staking out his opinions and leaving it at that. He worked hard and smart to lead, to persuade, to get down to the minute details of coalition-building, lawmaking and legislating.

Back in Jacksonville, after his Congressional career ended in 1982, Findley wrote books and articles and lectured around the country. He courageously defended Americans of the Islamic faith, after 9/11, from bias, exclusion and intimidation. He did his civic duties with local associations.  He also started the Lucille Findley Educational Foundation, in memory of his beloved wife – an Army nurse – he met in war-time Guam. They had two children. He always found time to be helpful, to serve others both locally and nationally. He also played tennis daily into his mid-eighties.

Findley possessed more than a streak of mid-west populism. Agricultural subsidies disproportionally going to a few wealthy landowners upset him greatly. He got through the House, after years of rejection, and over the objections of the Republican leadership, a $20,000 yearly limit of such subsidies per farm. The measure failed in the Senate.

Once again, in 1973, he bucked his Party and introduced an impeachment resolution against Nixon’s vice president Spiro Agnew, who later resigned in disgrace over a bribery scandal.

It was Findley’s interest in U.S. policies and operations in the Middle East, following his 1973 successful effort to obtain the release of a constituent from South Yemen that showed his moral courage, his belief in dialogue between adversaries and his commitment to the treatment of all people with dignity and respect. It also led to his defeat by Democrat Richard J. Durbin, now Illinois’s senior Senator.

Findley learned that the dispossessed and occupied Palestinian people were being treated unfairly and deprived of their human rights and self-determination. He visited refugee camps in the region. He met with Yasser Arafat, head of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and he urged peaceful diplomatic resolution of that conflict. For this sensible, though rare outreach by a Congressional lawmaker, he earned the immense enmity of U.S. partisans of the Israeli government. How dare he speak out on behalf of Palestinians, even though, he continued to vote for foreign aid to a prosperous  militarily advanced Israeli superpower?

As the New York Times reported: “He became convinced that the influential pro-Israel lobby known as Aipac, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, had a stranglehold on American politicians that prevented the establishment of a Palestinian state and prevented rational dealings with Arab leaders in general.” 

AIPAC activists, nationally and with their local affiliates, openly mobilized to defeat Findley in the 1980 election. They failed to do so. In 1982, they tried again, helping his Democratic opponent, Richard Durbin, to end Findley’s Congressional career by a margin of less than 1500 votes. AIPAC took credit for the win, raising over 80 percent of Durbin’s $750,000 in campaign funds from around the country. AIPAC’s executive director told a gathering in Texas: “We beat the odds and defeated Findley.”

Three years later, in 1985, Findley wrote and published his bold book “They Dare to Speak Out,” that described his efforts at peaceful advocacy for a two-state solution, which is now supported by many Israelis and Jewish Americans. In his book, he profiled other Americans who dared to speak out, and who endured intimidating slander and ostracism. Findley’s documentation of the suppression of their freedom of speech was an early precursor of what is going on now.

It was acceptable for the early patriots to boycott British tea, for civil rights leaders to boycott certain businesses in the South, for opponents of South Africa’s apartheid to launch a worldwide economic boycott. But some state governments impose sanctions on their contractors if they merely speak out in favor of the call to boycott, divest and sanction Israel’s illegal and brutal occupation of Palestine and its millions of Palestinians. (Today, Palestine is only twenty two percent the size of the original Palestine).

Findley wrote his autobiography in 2011. But it will take a fuller biography to place this modest lawmaker/public citizen, and wager of peace over unlawful wars and rampant militarism, in the conforming context of his times. His career contrasts with the present big business, Wall Street over Main Street, militaristic GOP and shows that the Republican Party didn’t always demand rigid unanimity.

To his credit, Senator Durbin eulogized Paul Findley, as “An exceptional public servant and friend.” He added that the man he defeated was “an elected official who showed exceptional courage in tackling the age old controversies in the Middle East.”

Senator Durbin could not say this about a single Republican in either the Senate or the House today, nor of over 95 percent of the Democrats.

Related Blog Posts:


Ralph Nader: How has Boeing avoided testifying in front of Congress for the 737 Max Airplane disasters?

 Ralph Nader: "What and Who Gave Us Trump?"


Ralph Nader: Youth Can Change Corporate View of Climate Crisis

What Are Activist Ralph Nader's Opinions On Radio News Organizations Such As NPR Or PBS?

Over 600 Environmental Groups write letter to Congress to phase out fossil fuels


Ralph Nader: Post Election -- Next Step -- Open Up The Existing Secretive Congress


Ralph Nader: Warner Slack - Doctor for the People Forever


Ralph Nader: An Open Letter to Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon


Ralph Nader: MAGA is really MADA?


Ralph Nader: Has Corruption Become Institutionalized?


Ralph Nader Says 10 Million People Could Change Healthcare Policy - That Few?


Ralph Nader Suggests To Consumers Reading 'Consumer Reports' Before Impulse Buying


Thoughts: Ralph Nader On A Cashless Economy

President Trump Proposes Student Loan Forgiveness for Severely Disabled Veterans

Photo by Jane Carmona on Unsplash

As a disclosure, I am a veteran.  Therefore, I may be biased to say that veterans of the United States military deserve more compensation for their service.  Both during their service and after.  If you have ever served in the United States Military, I do not think that you would disagree with me. 

An analysis in 2016 unveiled the troubling statistic that 20 veterans commit suicide each day.  What?   That is not only terrible but a result of not receiving the proper care after their service.  Mental health issues plague veterans more today than in earlier generations in the history of the United States.  Why?  Maybe the statistic is due to the lack of reporting.  Have I gone off script?

Possibly.  

The overall message is that more can be done for our veterans today.  The front page of the 'New York Times' today reports on the news that President Trump proposed that disabled veterans be given debt relief from their student loans.  From the stage in Louisville, Kentucky, President Trump announced that through executive order, that the student loans of totally disabled veterans be dismissed immediately.

The executive action is an excellent common-sense step, given that one of the obstacles to qualify for dismissal is the inability to be employed.  If a veteran is unable to work, why would the government require them to pay back student loans?   With what money?  Disability paycheck?  Veterans retirement pay?  

There has been the suspicion that Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has been sandbagging the issue over the last couple of years.   A letter was sent to Secretary DeVos from 51 State Attorney Generals to encourage her to step up action:

The Department of Education has identified over 42,000 veterans who are eligible for total and permanent disability (TPD) discharges based on information that the Department has received from the Department of Veterans Affairs.  Collectively, these veterans carry over $1 billion in dischargeable student loan debt—nearly $24,000 each on average. Yet fewer than 9,000 of these eligible veterans had applied for TPD discharges as of April 2018, and over 25,000 were in default. Although we hope that the number of eligible veterans requesting TPD discharges has increased significantly in the interim, these initial numbers tend to confirm that the current approach is inadequate.

One billion dollars is a small price to pay for the sacrifice that these veterans have taken during their military service.  Sacrifices that continue to affect their quality of life every day after their service.   We should be dismissing their loans without question.

Without questioning President Trump's motivation, the proposal is a good faith act for veterans.  Any presidential administration should strive to give more benefits to veterans. Those who have sacrificed so much for the freedom of our nation.  Only time will tell.  

Index of past blog sites:


1) Dimensional Analysis Of Statistics And Large Numbers - Index Of Blog Posts


2) Science Topics, Thoughts, and Parameters Regarding Science, Politics, And The Environment!

The Thermodynamics of Cosmetic Products?

Source: Shutterstock

Up until last year, I was writing a series on another blog site called 'anti-aging skin care' products.  The point of the series was to demystify the world of cosmetics through discussing the ingredients on the back which make them up.  How do ingredients help define the cosmetic product's function?  I had to put the series on hold for a while (until now) do to other writing responsibilities.  A few months ago, I ran across an article (which is below) with a question which dives deep into the molecular interactions involved in an 'emulsifier'.



At this point right now, you may be scratching your head wondering what an 'emulsifier' is?



Fair enough.



If you think of the following bottle of Salad dressing shown below:

Source: Jesica Gavin

Notice how the Salad dressing on the left contains two distinct (i.e., very different) phases of liquids.  The phase on top is 'less dense' (i.e. lighter, less matter per unit volume) than the phase on the bottom.



Phases with two different densities are around us each day.   Ice water with ice cubes is the most frequent example.  Ice is a phase of water that is less dense than liquid water.  Meaning that there are fewer molecules per volume.



Water is a special substance.



Why?  Typically, when the molecules in a liquid slow down to form a crystal, the unit density is larger than that of a liquid of the same substance.  But I did not write this article to discuss one property exclusively -- i.e., density.  If we dig a little deeper, the two distinct phases above can be made into a single phase.  Of course, that would require a molecular phase with properties of both phases above.

What is Thermodynamics?

Thermodynamics can be introduced by Wikipedia as follows:

Thermodynamics is the branch of physics that deals with heat and temperature, and their relation to energy, work, radiation, and properties of matter. The behavior of these quantities is governed by the four laws of thermodynamics which convey a quantitative description using measurable macroscopic physical quantities, but may be explained in terms of microscopic constituents by statistical mechanics. Thermodynamics applies to a wide variety of topics in science and engineering, especially physical chemistry, chemical engineering and mechanical engineering, but also in fields as complex as meteorology.

Historically, thermodynamics developed out of a desire to increase the efficiency of early steam engines, particularly through the work of French physicist Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot (1824) who believed that engine efficiency was the key that could help France win the Napoleonic Wars.[1] Scots-Irish physicist Lord Kelvin was the first to formulate a concise definition of thermodynamics in 1854[2] which stated, "Thermo-dynamics is the subject of the relation of heat to forces acting between contiguous parts of bodies, and the relation of heat to electrical agency."

The initial application of thermodynamics to mechanical heat engines was extended early on to the study of chemical compounds and chemical reactions. Chemical thermodynamics studies the nature of the role of entropy in the process of chemical reactions and has provided the bulk of expansion and knowledge of the field.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Other formulations of thermodynamics emerged. Statistical thermodynamics, or statistical mechanics, concerns itself with statistical predictions of the collective motion of particles from their microscopic behavior. In 1909, Constantin Carathéodory presented a purely mathematical approach in an axiomatic formulation, a description often referred to as geometrical thermodynamics.

The introduction above may seem confusing.  Thermodynamics is concerned with the various forms of energy in a system and its surroundings.  Some people find thermodynamics to be confusing and incomprehensible.  Terms such as entropy and heat may throw a monkey wrench into a person's understanding of a chemical system.  Although, thermodynamics is good at explaining various large scale properties of systems -- such as heat transfer, the entropy within the system, etc.  Confused yet?



Anyways, during the learning process, I have scoured the internet for various explanations or clarifications to different concepts.  That is part of an investigation into learning about cosmetic products.  Incorporating the chemistry behind the product requires a person to think about the energy within a system.  How is the system work with its constituent ingredients?  How does the system hold itself together?  How does thermodynamics achieve this?



Thermodynamics is the accountant for the energy of the system.  A person cannot help but investigate thermodynamic properties of a system to understand how the individual molecules mixed into a solution interact such that collectively they form the macroscopic system -- i.e., cosmetic product.



One such concept was that of an "Emulsifying Stabilizer".  Below is an example of a question/answer query that I found on a website called "Research Gate":



Question:

How does an emulsifier stabilize an emulsion?

Emulsion can be stabilized by increasing the repulsion between the dispersed phase i.e., by increasing the electrostatic repulsion (which is long range) or steric repulsion (short range). Emulsifiers are amphiphiles that reduce the interfacial tension between the two phases and contribute to the stabilization of dispersed droplets with electrostatic or steric effects. 

I wish to know the detailed mechanism by which emulsifiers stabilize an emulsion. References will be of real help.

Thanks.

One possible Answer that intrigued me was the following:



Answer:

When a surfactant adsorbs on the interface the interfacial tension between the two phases decreases. The reduced interfacial tension depends on the concentration of the surfactant according to the Gibbs’ isotherm.

Adsorbed surfactants or solid particles stabilize emulsions via two main mechanisms:

1. steric stabilization

2. electrostatic stabilization

Steric stabilization arises from a physical barrier to contact and coalescence. For example, high-molecular-weight polymers can adsorb on the surface of the dispersed phase droplets and extend significantly into the continuous phase, providing a volume restriction or a physical barrier for particle interactions. As polymer coated particles approach, the polymers are forced into close proximity and repulsive forces arise, keeping particles apart from each other. Surface-active solid particles such as clays have also been shown to sterically stabilize emulsions.

Electrostatic stabilization is based on the mutual repulsive forces that are generated when electrical charged surfaces approach each other. In an electrostatically stabilized emulsion, an ionic or ionisable surfactant forms a charged layer at the interface. For an oil-in-water emulsion, this layer is neutralized by counter ions in the continuous phase. The charged surface and the counter ions are termed a double layer. If the counter ions are diffuse (thick double layer), the disperse phase droplets act as charged spheres as they

approach each other. If the repulsive forces are strong enough, the droplets are repelled before they can make contact and coalesce, and the emulsion is stable.

In general, electrostatic stabilization is significant only for oil-in-water emulsions since the electric double-layer thickness is much greater in water than in oil.

Both electrostatic and steric forces can prevent aggregation or coalescence and hence stabilize emulsions.

Reference: Urrutia P.I., Predicting Water-In-Oil Emulsion Coalescence From Surface Pressure Isotherms, Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, University of Calgary M. Sc. Thesis, 2006.

I hope it was useful for you.

That is what occurs when the mixture is shaken up as shown in the right-hand side.  Over time, the emulsifier is not strong enough to stabilize the two phases from forming again.  The interactions of repulsion and attraction play a dominant role in all of chemistry.  The scale on which these interactions occur is so small that typically we do not see them (or think about them).



Chemists think about them on a daily basis -- especially, formulation chemists at a cosmetic product manufacturing company.  The energetics associated with interactions determine whether a reaction will occur or not.  Chemistry plays a beautiful role in our world every day.  Although, most of us choose not to look or think of these interactions.  Which is fine too.



Although, when a consumer goes into a store and purchases a cosmetic product, the questions he/she asks the vendor are involving the interactions of the ingredients.  Further, the questions include the interaction of the ingredients with the customer's skin and thermodynamic variables -- temperature, pressure, volume,  and environmental conditions.  After reading this brief article, I would expect your picture and thinking involving cosmetic ingredients to have widened -- which is great.

Thoughts: House Democrats ask More Automakers to Join California Fuel Agreement

Photo by Pawel on Unsplash

Democrats have pushed ahead to ask 14 automakers to join the list of 4 major automakers (from last month) in an agreement to keep increasing fuel efficiency:

HOUSE DEMOCRATS PRESS ON THE GAS: Eight senior House Democrats, led by Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.), are following in the footsteps of 30 Senate Democrats today to press major automakers to sign onto the agreement struck between California and four other carmakers ahead of the Trump administration's auto emissions rollback, Pro's Anthony Adragna reports.

The deal reached last month between the Golden State and Ford, Volkswagen, Honda and BMW North America would see vehicles average 50 miles per gallon by 2026 — a standard less aggressive than the Obama-era rules would have required, but far above the Trump administration's plan.

"While not on par with the Obama Administration standards, this agreement brings our transportation sector closer to the goals of the current standards while providing greater certainty for industry," the House lawmakers wrote. "We encourage all automakers to come to the table and work towards pragmatic solutions that will better protect the planet while preventing years of litigation and economic uncertainty."

Signers include Energy and Commerce's Environment and Climate Change subcommittee Chairman Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) and senior members of the House Sustainable Energy & Environment Coalition. The letter went to the leaders of Aston Martin, Fiat Chrysler, General Motors, Hyundai, Jaguar, Kia, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Porsche, Subaru, Toyota and Volvo.

This news comes amid last months agreement between the 4 significant automakers over the increasing fuel efficiency, despite the Trump administration's push for reversing the increase.  If the Trump administration were to win a battle, then the increase in fuel efficiency (i.e., fuel targets) would be reduced rather than sought after as in the Obama administration.  Trump administration officials believe that reversing such goals would save automakers money and time with having to meet such demanding targets moving into the future.



What is surprising though is that automakers have already begun to adjust over the last few years to meet more stringent demands on fuel efficiency.  Which is great.  Therefore, reversing course now would not make any sense.  In fact, that would require a prolonged legal battle, which is what automakers do not want for the Trump administration.  Regardless, the Trump administration believes that spending enormous amounts of money in protracted legal battles is what big corporations want -- to roll back Obama era regulations.  Which are a terrible idea and a big waste of time?



Related Blog Posts:



1) Dimensional Analysis Of Statistics And Large Numbers - Index Of Blog Posts


2) Science Topics, Thoughts, and Parameters Regarding Science, Politics, And The Environment!

Thoughts: Education is the best possible route toward combating dangers to the public!

Source: Quest Tec Solutions

While the federal agencies are responsible for guarding the health and well-being of the public in the United States, the same agencies do not always have the health interests of the people in mind.  Of course, that sounds strange since that is what the duty they are charged with as an agency.



A recent example is in Belmont County, Ohio, the site of a newly proposed ethane cracking plant.  The plans have brought education of the associated dangers to the forefront of the discussion:

Jill Hunkler, a member of the Sierra Club, worries about the health risks associated with the proposed petrochemical facility, and she has voiced her opinion at several public hearings on the plant.

“Our main goal is to educate people on the health risks, because local authorities and agencies aren’t telling the other side of the story,” she said.

The Ohio EPA took those concerns into account and issued a modified wastewater discharge permit and an air permit for the plant.

Activists like Jill Hunkler are heroes for their perseverance to educate the public regarding the potential risks right outside of their houses.  One person alone cannot save a small town by herself.  But safety in numbers works both ways.  Large groups of homeowners and concerned citizens can reverse a decision if their collective argument presents a formidable political obstacle for a politician.



The town of Belmont County should be concerned, as noted in the excerpt above.  Especially, since after the citizens raised concern over to the addition of a new chemical plant (ethane), the Ohio EPA changed their permit from the original version.  That in of itself should be of concern to the town's citizen.



Educating the town is the correct avenue to achieve safety for one city.  The news above serves as a great example of the benefits of collective activism.  Each city in America needs Jill Hunkler advocating for a safe environment. If this was the case, then the United States might not have a significant number of SuperFund Sites which still need rehabilitation (soil remediation).  The example above serves as a benchmark for all of us to achieve in our own community.



Related Blog Posts:


Ralph Nader: How has Boeing avoided testifying in front of Congress for the 737 Max Airplane disasters?


Science Topics, Thoughts, and Parameters Regarding Science, Politics, And The Environment!


Dimensional Analysis Of Statistics And Large Numbers - Index Of Blog Posts

Ralph Nader: How has Boeing avoided testifying in front of Congress for the 737 Max Airplane disasters?

Source: Extra.ie

The tragedies caused by multiple crashes of Boeing's 737 Max are inexcusable.  Citizens who fly from around the world expect oversight from the respective country where the plane is manufactured in.  Which leaves the responsibility to the Federal Aviation Association on American soil.  So far, no leadership of Boeing Corporation has been called to testify in front of Congress.  This would not happen for any other industry in the United States of America.  Why the Airline industry?

The iconic activist Ralph Nader has recently written about this conundrum.  He has decades worth of experience in investigating (and litigating) corporate malfeasance.  Below is his take on the current situation facing Congress:

With the Boeing 737 MAX Grounded, Top Boeing Bosses Must Testify Before Congress Now

Two Boeing 737 MAX crashes, one in Indonesia last October and one in Ethiopia this past March, took a combined 346 lives. Steady scrutiny by the media reported internal company leaks and gave voice to sidelined ex-Boeing engineers and aerospace safety specialists. These experts have revealed that Boeing’s executives are responsible because they chose to use an unstable structural design and faulty software. These decisions left the flying public, the pilots, the airlines, and the FAA in the dark, to varying degrees.

Yet Congressional Committees, which announced investigations months ago, still have not called on Dennis Muilenburg, the CEO of Boeing, or any member of Boeing’s Board of Directors to testify.

Given the worldwide emergency grounding of all 400 or so MAX aircraft and the peril to crews and airline passengers, why are the Senate and House Committees holding back? House Committee Chairman, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) wants to carefully prepare for such action after the staff goes through the much delayed transmission of documents from Boeing. Meanwhile, Senate Committee Chair Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) deferred to Boeing’s request to put off their testimony before Congress until the Indonesian government puts out its report on the Lion Air disaster, presumably sometime in October.

Meanwhile, just about everybody in the airline industry, the Department of Transportation, the National Transportation Safety Board, the Justice Department (with its criminal probe), the transport unions, the consumer groups such as Flyers Rights, and the flying public are anxious to see top Boeing officials in the witness chair under oath answering important questions.

It is not as if Boeing lobbyists are absent. The giant company has been everywhere in Washington, D.C. getting its way for years in Congress, with NASA, the Department of Defense, and of course, the hapless, understaffed FAA. Boeing gives campaign donations to about some 330 members of Congress.

Corporate CEOs hate to testify before Congress under oath when they are in hot water. CEOs from the tobacco, drug, auto, banking, insurance, and Silicon Valley industries have all dragged their feet to avoid testifying. Eventually they all had to show up in public on Capitol Hill.

The Boeing case involves a more imminent danger. The company and its “captured” FAA want to unground the MAX as fast as possible and to get more new MAXs, under order, to the airlines.

This haste is all the more reason why Congress has to pick up the pace, regardless of “MAX Mitch” McConnell, the Kentucky dictator of the Senate who is a ward of the Boeing complex and its campaign cash. If the 737 MAX is ever allowed to fly again, with its shaky software fixes, glitches, and stitches, the pressure will build on members of Congress to go soft on the company. They will be told not to alarm millions of passengers and unsettle the airline industry with persistent doubts about the plane’s prone-to-stall and other serious safety hazards from overautomation and sloppy construction, already documented in The New York Times, the Seattle Times, and other solid media reporting.

With investigations underway at civil aviation agencies all over the world, and a grand jury operating in the U.S. looking into criminal negligence, this is no time for Congress to take its time in laying open the fullest truths and facts in public. Bear in mind, apart from the civil tort law suits, all other investigations are not being conducted in public.

There is a growing consensus by impartial specialists that after many iterations of the Boeing 737 series, beginning with the 737-100 in 1967, the much larger, more elaborate Boeing 737 MAX must be seen as a new aircraft requiring full certification. Certainly that is the view of some members of Chairman DeFazio’s committee and Chairman David Price’s House Subcommittee on Appropriations which holds the keys to funding a much larger FAA budget to do its job as a regulator, not as a deregulator that abdicates to Boeing.

Moreover, retired airline Captain Chesley Sullenberger, in his brilliant testimony before DeFazio on June 19th, called for full simulator training for pilots before they fly the MAX on scheduled routes (read Captain Sullenberger’s full statement here).

In a precise letter to the Secretary of Transportation, Elaine Chao and the acting and incoming heads of the FAA (Daniel Elwell and Stephen Dickson respectively), dozens of families and friends of the victims from many countries asked for full recertification and mandatory simulator training before any decision is made about the 737 MAX. Currently 737 MAX pilots are only given an hour of iPad training—a clearly insufficient measure and an affront to safety (see more here). The letter, which was sent on August 7, 2019, also called for the resignation of Ali Bahrami, the abdicator in charge of safety at the FAA.

Many decisions are coming up for the FAA and Boeing. The FAA would be very foolish to unground the 737 MAX just for U.S. airspace without the counterparts in North America, Europe, Asia, South America, and Africa concurring.

As for Boeing, the company cannot afford another one or two crashes attributed to continued indifference to longstanding aerodynamic standards of stability. The issue for Boeing’s celebrity, minimally experienced Board of Directors is how long it will tolerate Boeing’s management that, over the judgement of its best engineers, has brought the company to its present predicament.

How long before the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Department of Transportation or the Congress and the betrayed airlines themselves call for the resignation of both officers and the Board and, end the career conflict of interest these failed incumbents have with the future well-being of the Boeing Corporation itself?

Each new pilot training to fly on the 737 Max is given an hour on an iPad?  That is the extent of their training?  WOW.   Ralph Nader raises many points of concern which line up with news about 737 Max being released.  Lion Air is asking Boeing to fulfill the remainder of the order for 187 new 737 Max airplanes.  Despite last years crash which killed 189 passengers.  The airline has yet to produce an official report regarding the crash.



Lion Air is not the only company asking Boeing to fulfill orders.  Before any order is fulfilled, Congress should have a hearing at which a Board Officer from Boeing should be present to testify.  Especially, when whistleblower pilots such as Captain  Bernd Kai von Hoesslin has expressed concerns about the software systems which affect the stalling systems on the 737 Max airplane.  The time is now to ask Congressional leaders to get to the bottom of these terrible tragedies.  No more planes should have to crash before action is taken.



Related Blog Posts:


 Ralph Nader: "What and Who Gave Us Trump?"


Ralph Nader: Youth Can Change Corporate View of Climate Crisis

What Are Activist Ralph Nader's Opinions On Radio News Organizations Such As NPR Or PBS?

Over 600 Environmental Groups write letter to Congress to phase out fossil fuels


Ralph Nader: Post Election -- Next Step -- Open Up The Existing Secretive Congress


Ralph Nader: Warner Slack - Doctor for the People Forever


Ralph Nader: An Open Letter to Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon


Ralph Nader: MAGA is really MADA?


Ralph Nader: Has Corruption Become Institutionalized?


Ralph Nader Says 10 Million People Could Change Healthcare Policy - That Few?


Ralph Nader Suggests To Consumers Reading 'Consumer Reports' Before Impulse Buying


Thoughts: Ralph Nader On A Cashless Economy

Another Example of the Trump administration's Efforts to Suppress Science Supporting Climate Change

Photo by Harrison Moore on Unsplash

Since coming into office, President Trump has been on a mission to get rid of any science that supports climate change.  That may sound abrupt.  At every chance, the opportunity to call climate change 'a hoax' made up by China, or pure nonsense. The Trump administration seems intent on dismissing the frequent storms and varying weather patterns as such -- historical changes that occur over time.  The problem with that view is that noticeable changes are occurring in our weather patterns.  Storms are more frequent.



In fact, the Trump administration cannot adequately fund the recovery of a small city or state after such storms (i.e., Hurricane Maria -- Puerto Rico, Hurricane Matthew -- Houston, Hurricane Michael - East Coast, etc.).  What does the future look like with such leadership?  Suppressing science must stop now.  Although, in the current political climate, the chance of that happening is slim. Notably, with reporting from 'Politico Agriculture' on the administration's efforts to suppress recent science directly linked to climate change:

USDA SCIENTIST DESCRIBES CLIMATE REPORT SUPPRESSION: An Agriculture Department scientist, who has researched plants across five administrations, is quitting the department in protest of the Trump administration's efforts to bury his groundbreaking study about how rice loses nutrients due to rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, Pro's Helena Bottemiller Evich reports.

Lewis Ziska, a 62-year-old plant physiologist, told POLITICO he was alarmed when department officials not only questioned the findings of the study, but also tried to minimize press coverage of the paper. "You get the sense that things have changed, that this is not a place for you to be exploring things that don't agree with someone's political views," Ziska said. "That's so sad. I can't even begin to tell you how sad that is."

A POLITICO investigation last month revealed USDA has routinely buried its own climate-related science. Ziska's exit follows the recent departures of several other government officials who have accused the administration of censoring climate science — including an intelligence analyst at the State Department who he left his post after administration officials blocked his testimony to Congress about the national security implications of climate change.

USDA said in a statement response to Ziska's resignation that objections to promoting his rice study were based on scientific disagreement involving career officials, not political appointees. But in describing his decision to leave, Ziska painted a picture of a department in constant fear of the president and Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue's open skepticism about broadly accepted climate science, leading officials to go to extremes to obscure their work to avoid political blowback.

While he said there was never a department memo that directed USDA scientists to be more careful with their language, it was well understood. "No one wanted to say climate change, you would say climate uncertainty or you would say extreme events," he said. "Or you would use whatever euphemism was available to not draw attention."

A report by 'Politico' detailed the suppression of the scientific report which shed light on the loss of nutrients to rice by the increase in carbon dioxide in the environment.  The total estimated impact would be to 600 million people worldwide.  Although the estimated range of affected is 138 million to 1.4 billion depending on which nutrient is considered.  These projections caused considerable alarm for Dr. Lewis Ziska at the USDA.



Especially since the political blowback, Dr. Lewis Ziska received regarding the results published in 'Science Advances' last year.  As mentioned in the article by Politico, Dr. Lewis Ziska's departure follows other career scientists at the USDA.  Other federal agencies have seen the same departures under the Trump administration.  Which is unprecedented.  Given the Trump administration's views on science and its relation to climate change, the exits are not totally surprising.



A scientist can only work under certain restrictions before quitting (or resigning) seems like a more reasonable solution.  When an administration cuts off a scientist's ability to conduct, report, and share scientific results; then science is not being carried out to the standard accepted by the scientific community.  Scientists do not suppress data -- regardless of what the data shows.



The same reporter last year wrote a report on this controversy.  A video is shown in the article with a brief interview with Agricultural Secretary Sonny Perdue trying to blow off the connection between man and climate change:

The video above, along with the article above (and those cited) show a continuous trend of the Trump administration suppressing science at every level.  If the scientific evidence supports climate change, then hide it.  That seems to be their motto.  Unfortunately, that is what we (the public) are stuck with at the current moment -- at least until 2020 -- when we go to the ballot box and try to change the representation at the highest office.



I have said all along and continue to say that science is funded by the taxpayer.  Therefore, each of us has a right to see the results of the scientific studies which are funded by the money we pay in annual taxes.  Many people are unaware of the fact that the money paid in taxes support such research.



Further, one primary objective of the federal agencies is to educate the public based on the findings of research which is funded by taxpayer dollars.  If the Trump administration (or any other administration) chooses to try to suppress scientific results; that is a direct violation of our right to know knowledge funded with our dollars.  The time has already passed to demand that the Trump administration stop suppressing science.  The remaining choice we have as Americans is to show up in November of 2020 and vote.  Change the system with your vote.




Related Blog Posts:


DOE Secretary Rick Perry walks a fine line to satisfy both Congress and the Trump administration


Per Fluoro Alkyl Substances (PFAS) Bills Travel Through Congress While Lobbyists Try To Narrow Restrictions


Congress Writes EPA Director Wheeler About Chemical Risk Program


Why is the Trump Administration Suppressing Science -- AGAIN???


President Trump Is Out Of Touch With The Transition Toward Renewable Energy


Why is the Trump Administration Suppressing Science -- AGAIN???


President Trump finally fills the Office of Science and Technology Policy position - Yeah!

How Effective Are Poultry Corporations At Reducing Salmonella In Their Products?

Should you consider science while before voting next Tuesday?

Congress Gets Involved In Beef Recall

FDA is failing at detecting salmonella cases at processing plants across the U.S.

Can The President Prevent The Public From Learning About Scientific Research???

Thoughts: Immigrants Are Extremely Important To America

President Trump Just Allowed Greater Environmental Risk To Children's Health


Chemical Safety Board's Future Uncertain as Hurricane Season Approaches


135 Climate Scientists Urge Prime Minister Theresa May to Challenge President Trump on his Climate Stance during visit to the UK

National Academies Weigh In On Scientific Evidence For Climate Science