Google is a wonderful thing. :)
Posted 16 August 2014, 9:13 p.m.
Why is Jim Amonette considered an earth scientist? From this [link]:
James E. Amonette, Ph.D., specializes in the areas of environmental geochemistry and soil mineralogy. He has a strong interest in the structure and chemistry of minerals and in the application of spectroscopic techniques, such as laser photoacoustic, Mössbauer, electron paramagnetic, infrared, and x-ray absorption/scattering, to characterize the solid phases and to predict and monitor the reactions associated with the presence of hazardous wastes in soil environments. In recent years he has expanded his interests to include ways of capturing and sequestering C in soils and geological formations. Currently, he is currently involved in projects related to 1) the redox chemistry of iron-bearing clays and nanoparticles and its impact on the reductive degradation pathways of chlorinated hydrocarbons, 2) terrestrial soil carbon sequestration with a focus on amendments (such as fly ash and charcoal), management regimes (moisture), and soil gas monitoring, and 3) monitoring of leakage rates from geologic carbon sequestration.
For nearly a decade, Dr. Amonette co-led a team working on the fundamental molecular-scale aspects of carbonate mineral dissolution and growth processes using a combination of atomic-force microscopy and theoretical calculations. More recently, Dr. Amonette has focused on the catalytic mechanisms that promote the formation of humic materials....
Dr. Amonette has worked on the precipitation/dissolution chemistry of Cr(III) and Cr(VI) in soils. He identified the solid solution Ba(S,Cr)O4 as a possible phase controlling the aqueous concentrations of Cr(VI) species and determined the solubility products of several Ba(S,Cr)O4 solids. He also provided infrared spectroscopic evidence for the existence of the amorphous (Fe,Cr)(OH)3 solid solution and for the association of carbonate with Cr in the structure of this compound. Recently, he used laser photoacoustic spectroscopy to measure the kinetics and thermodynamics of trace-level chromate sorption to iron oxides.
Dr. Amonette has more than 28 years of research experience and has been with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) since 1986. He has authored or coauthored more than 57 peer reviewed scientific journal publications, 20 book chapters, 40 technical reports, six patents mainly in the area of photoacoustic spectroscopy, and a book on quantitative methods in soil mineralogy.
Ph.D., Soil Chemistry, Iowa State UniversityM.S., Soil Chemistry, Iowa State UniversityB.S., Soil Science, New Mexico State University
Posted 16 August 2014, 4:38 p.m.
A post today from Robert Reich, whom I believe to be intellectually honest:
"You’d think I’d declared myself a Republican. Since I said yesterday on ABC’s “This Week” that I was impressed with much of Representative Paul Ryan's discussion paper on "Expanding Opportunity in America,” many have accused me of selling out to the devil. Can we get a grip? Unlike Ryan's previous proposals, this one doesn’t cut a dollar from programs for the poor; in fact, it expands the Earned Income Tax Credit – a wage subsidy for low-wage workers. It gives states more discretion for how they use money for the poor, but it’s not a block grant: State plans would still have to be approved by the federal government, and they’d have to monitor various measures of success -- families lifted out of poverty, percentage of people finding work or getting off assistance, growth in wages, high school graduation rates and so on. The proposal puts attention where it belongs -- on poverty and upward mobility for those at the bottom.
"I know, I know. State governments unsympathetic to the poor have too often syphoned off federal money for other purposes. And look at all the Republican state governments that refuse to expand their Medicaid programs under the Affordable Care Act, even though federal taxpayers will foot nearly the entire cost. But the Ryan plan at least offers a starting point for discussion. Have we become so polarized and distrustful we can’t even talk?"
Posted 30 July 2014, 11:36 a.m.
I agree with you here. The point I was attempting to make was that D'Sousa's anecdote of a very rare black female millionaire was - in my view - his way of negating or countering the other very legitimate complaints blacks have had regarding the discriminatory laws and practices they have faced since the end of slavery. I'm not calling for reparations or anything like that, and I DO agree with you that ALL children must be taught they can do or become anything they want; however, the legacy of past racial abuses (and some that is ongoing) has not yet fully passed. There is still work to be done on that front, which I sense that D'Sousa would rather not acknowledge.
It is like showing us the one scientist who is skeptical of global warming and not bothering to interview the 99 who have come to a different conclusion. It's an intentional distortion.
Posted 25 July 2014, 8:14 a.m.
Democrats have their share of criminals, like Blagojevich, and John Edwards and Andrew Weiner turned out to be narcissistic creeps. I'll give you that. But the Bill Ayers types we do not elect - or if so, rarely.
Dennis Kucinich was to the Democratic party what Ron Paul was to the Republican party: representatives of a highly principled, non-violent, but more extreme version of their party's core values.
I will also acknowledge that both parties have historically had some pretty strange characters, extremists, perverts, criminals, etc. get elected from time to time. The distinction I am trying to make is that the ones with far-out views used to be rarities, particularly in national offices, for both parties. The Democrats haven't changed much in the past 20 years. In fact, they may have drifted a bit more centrist. The Republican party, however, has largely been radicalized. I truly believe that Reagan could never get through the Republican primary process today with his record on tax hikes and his views on moderate gun control. The party is driving out all of its moderation in favor of uncompromising, far right, evangelistic, science-denying, Obama-obsessed, Fox-worshiping crazies. Ted Cruz is now a leader in that party, which should be evidence enough.
Posted 25 July 2014, 8:03 a.m.
I apparently liked what I wrote so much that I had to post it twice. Sorry about that.
Posted 25 July 2014, 7:48 a.m.
I read it. The majority of the sources are right wingers like Sean Hannity, The Blaze, Breitbart, etc. The most damning evidence seems to be this vague statement by a Blaze reporter, who writes about an early 2014 government bid for a contractor to transport up to 65,000 children: “The surge to 60,000 or so children seen this year was said to catch many off guard, especially since just 6,500 children entered the U.S. as early as 2011,” reported Pete Kasperowicz for The Blaze.
It "was said to catch many off guard." So in other words, the fact that one agency apparently began in January to recognize and plan for the oncoming immigration influx is evidence that the Obama administration has intentionally manufactured this crisis. How do we know it was manufactured? Because it "was said to have caught many off guard." Again, note the words, "was said," and the word, "many." This is terrible journalism. "Was said" by whom? Who is "many"?
Sorry, but this appears to me to be nothing more than a conspiracy theory.
Posted 24 July 2014, 8:59 p.m.
This appears to me to be nothing more than a conspiracy theory.
Posted 24 July 2014, 8:58 p.m.
We've discussed on this thread how polarizing political documentaries can be. I'd like to suggest that you all check out Robert Reich's "Inequality for All," as I believe - while it does take a position - that it is intentionally not polarizing and is certainly scholarly. You may or may not agree with it, but I think you would find it at least to be intellectually competent. I thought it did a great job of boiling down some of our core economic anxieties that most Americans feel.
It streams on Netflix. Here's a link. http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/702678...
Posted 22 July 2014, 9:45 p.m.
That's fair, though I like Rachel Maddow and wouldn't mind being associated with her. Chris Matthews, though, is a blowhard. The Buchanan to whom I was referring was our own Craig Buchanan, who occasionally writes letters to the U-B.
Posted 22 July 2014, 9:30 p.m.
©2014 Walla Walla Union-Bulletin
Desktop site|Tablet version