Fetzthechemist’s Weblog

Pundits and media people, especially those on the right, are continually harping on and on about the Obama adminstration blaming the economic crisis on the Bush administration.

This crisis started showing up last summer, even before the Democratic primaries were done. It was in full swing with Wall Street collapse and banks on the edge of closing before the November election. Bush’s administration put out the bailout monies with no string, no conditions to be met. This all happened before Obama was inaugerated.

Just as Herbert Hoover’s administration was blamed for the Wall Street collapse of 1929 and starting the Great Depression, Bush ought to be carrying that albatross. Franklin Roosevelt inherited that mess and it took several years to turn things around. Obama has been in office for only 8 months. Part of that period, his administration had to administer that free bailout money agreed to by Bush (and yes, the Democratic-controlled Congress, so blame those two). The banks have steadily refused any bailout monies that might now be tied to doing business differently. Forcing them to comply with ex-post-facto rules imposed after they had the money is nigh on to impossible. The Obama administration has no legal footing to do that.

People expect instant results these days. Everything has to be done now or it is ineffective. Undoing any problems created by a predecessor is irrelevant to that thinking. Change has to be instantaneous. Ludicrous, but the way a lot of people are thinking.

As far as the debt load, as a percentage of GNP, these deficits are not records. When you have a multitrillion dollar economy, a trillion dollar debt is what has to happen. Roosevelt had bigger proportional debts, then a short period of prosperity before the huge debts for World War II started. The post-war boom erased all of the debts from the New Deal and the War. Everybody needs patience and perspective.

After my last trip to the Middle East at the end of July, I started playing a few of the games on Facebook. Mainly these were to kill time in a fun way. But a couple of those make me think about the ways people think. Those two are Farmville (or its alternative from another provider, Farm Town) and Mafia Wars.

Farmville is very innocuous. You get a blank farm and collect points by buying things and growing crops. There are a variety of crops to grow that increases in number as you go up levels. There are trees and animals to acquire and you get paid for milking a cow or picking apples. Those coins go towards buying building and other things. The psychology in this game is more in observing the farms of others, or how you do your own. I am finding out that I am very organized and like neatness – no surprise there. But my farm, in contrast to most, might show that my neatness borders on anal-retentive. I never thought I was that severe and am pretty adaptable, but I must prefer an ideal of very orderly.

I look at others’ farms. Trees are scattered here and there, what seems haphazard to me. The anality says trees must be in an orchard-style setting of rows and all trees of similar types go together – peaches with peaches, apples with apples. I even have the three types of pa;ms grouped together, yet separate from the fruit trees. Animals can be put in place or allowed to roam randomly. Me? I have them grouped in tight arrays., no walking allowed. Some people grow various crops at the same time. I grew up on a 90-acre farm that had one big field planted with one crop, be it soybeans, sorghum, or hay. So this farm is that – one crop for it all.

Other farms seem disorderly and cluttered. Mine has ended up ordered and cluttered as I cram more and more stuff on the limited space. The future will probably see me jettisoning a lot of things and ending up with ordered and uncluttered.

Mafia Wars is a far different game because you interact much more with other players. In Farmville, it is just exchanging gifts of trees, animals, decorations. In Mafia Wars, you build your own mafia and fight others, both as individuals and as groups. Your strength in fights depends on your mafia, size and their strength, and the weapons you have obtained. Your collect both money and points that move you up levels.

If you are strong enough or attack someone repeatedly you may kill them (as far as scoring). This gains you no cash or points for actually killing anyone, but you do get a banner to post on your Facebook homepage. So there are no benefits in killing people other than accumulating the points in winning fights (or a portion of any cash they are carrying). But lots of players get into the mode of fighting someone until there is a kill. The fight points are really easy then. You beat someone the first time and just keep repeating. But you can do that by just picking on players with small numbers of mafia members (if you have 50, always fight those with only 20, for example). I do not get the attitude of guaranteed winning. It has no risk and no fun to me. I fight a player only once, just to see who wins. I also only fight someone with a mafia more or less my size, somewhere plus or minus 10 percent.

The wierd attitudes come in when you get somebody for killing you, or trying to. My player is very strong on offense, less so on defense. So I can get killed by one of these players, then return the favor – or I do the analogous thing, if they fight and beat me 8 times, then I do it 8 times back. Some people get pissed and resort to some of the revenge tactics, sicing their stronger mafia members on you or putting a bounty on you. They do not get it that you’re only giving them a taste of their own medicine.\

In both games, gifting things are part of the play. Most people are pretty even-handed. You give them somethging, they give you something. In Mafia Wars, you actually have wishlists because there are sets of things to collect. In that game, you do see more obviously the greedy people – they get gifts, but do not give back. I do not understand this attitude, being moderately altruistic and colleageal.

So I see some things more than just the game by playing.

Members of the Obama staff are calling Fox News a biased network that only reports a slant towards rgw Republicans and against any of their opposition. What’s so newsy about that? It is an obvious fact that both conservatives agree with (in support of those views) and liberals agree on (in opoosition to those same views). The executives at Fox still tout their “unbiased” reporting of the news. Who really believes that line? When a hack muckraker like Geraldo Rivera is their most balanced reporter, Fox has little credibility about being balanced  or balanced, even for the multimillions they spend on PR to say that.

Well, the heairs and scavengers of Michael Jackson’s music vaults have start releasing “previously unreleased” songs. “This is It” will be the first of a couple hundred new singles by the King of Pop. The greedy promoters, record companies, lawyers, and various family will put out a steady stream of such. Like Elvis, Ji,i Henmdrix, John Lennon, Freddie Mercury, ad nauseum, Jackson will join that group that sells and sells and sells. Every demo and castoff will be remixed to passable quality and sold to the rabid fans who have deified Jackson. He will sell better in the five years after his death than the five years before it. Such is the sorry staye of the music industry and its taste for profit.

I sleep in separate periods throughout the night, seldom sleeping for one long time. Instead it is an hour or two of dream-filled sleep, then I briefly wake up, change positions, and sleep again. This wakefulness allows me to remember a lot of the dreams I have. I am one who dreams in all senses, tactile, with smells, tastes, colors, sounds. Sometimes those sounds are music and I wake up with a song in my head. Last night was the eclectic mix of rock that is my taste – Deep Purple’s Smoke on the Water, Emerson, Lake and Palmer’s Still you turn me on, and Coldplay’s Clock. Sometimes it is something odd created in my mind, like the supposedly newly discovered Beatles song Rumoured, which was sung in German. An amalgam of odd ideas.

OK, ranted about how the Nobel Prizes in chemistry and literature are flawed selections, and how economics ought not to be one at all. But the Peace Prize sees the idea that Alfred Nobel had. Giving Barack Obama it is recognition that reaching out, concilliating, trying to set up a dialogue (meaning a discussion where both sides participate), and similar moves and attitudes is better for world peace than policies of go-it-alone strategies. It is a repudiation of George W. Bush’s attitudes that he ran the world no matter what anyone else thought.

The message to Muslims especially draws attention. Obama tries to understand their perspective and reconcile it into a worldview. Bush never ever understood that all Muslims are not trying to throw their nations back into the sixth century. Bush never could listen to anyone else nor could he change any viewpoint or reconsider any decision. Inflexible would be an understatement. The Nobel Prize is more for reviving attitudes aimed at peaceful diplomacy, more measured actions, and more effort to understand and work with other nations than it is about what Mother Theresa or Albert Schweitzer did in their Prize-winning efforts.

Addendum: Of course the Republican response is totally negative, highlighted by the cry that accomplishments should be the only criterion. They do not get it that tone is key in creating a climate riper for peace. They do not think George W. Bush’s bellicose stances on foreign policy made every nation more adamant and less conciliatory. They do not understand that creating a dialogue and trust matter – they are the party of shouting down any differing views. Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King had no real accomplishments, but they were peacemakers who made a difference through setting a tone. Gandhi eschewed a violent independence movement in south Asia and Dr. King drew a parallel in what was a violent civil rights movement. If their attitudes did not matter that much, why did both die by assasination from proponents of violence?

So a European again won the Nobel Prize for Literature. Big Deal. Mueller may really be good, but the odds are against it. The current makeup of that selection committee, and any variations over the past twenty-five or so years, has been all too wont to pick some semi-popular European of moderate level. The test of time shows thatr these selections are not enduring. The only variation on this pattern is when they must feel guilty and turn to some obscure author from a third-world nation. Even those the vast bulk of authors and books come from the US, with Canada, Japan, and Australia also fitting into this good, but ignored, category, the Novels mean little anymore to the literary communitee or to the literate public (those who read for the enjoyment of words, storytelling, character buildup, plots, et cetera).

Yes, they do pick some authors who are European or third-worlders who are deserving, Naipaul comes to mind, but those are much less than a half of the prize winners in this “Eurocentric” era (not my choice of descriptions, but one of an anonymous member of the committee who wanted to voice concerns about the Prize’s image).

Now I get to harangue about Democrats and their behavior, as I have about Republicans. California Governor Schwartenegger, in a move planned to try to move towards bipartisanship, appeared before a group of Democratic politicians yesterday. In a response that might have been choreographed by Joe Wilson, there were raucous shouts when the Governor enterred, was introdused, and while he gave a brief speech. Some were mimicking the infamous “You lie!” shout. Most notable San Francisco state assemblyman kept shouting “Kiss my gay ass!”.

These are the people we elect to run this state )or analogously to run the nation). A bunch of people with the maturity of elementary-school aged kids. If you dislike and disagree with someone in that context, just sit in stony silence. The awkwardness that brings will speak volumes on the differences in views you have without casting a negative light on you like acting like an eight-year old does.

I must admit that this is a tough topic. The situations and causes are just too numerous to be accurate in suggestions to cover them. But there are a few general guidelines and this is an important topic. I never have to explain the phrase toxic coworker when I use it and I het numerous questions about bad coworkers.

First advice would be to ask if your supervisor know the situation. Secondly, does the supervisor care and want to do things to improve the lab. An indifferent or fainthearted boss will be of little use. Making such a supervisor aware is needed, but expectations ought to be low. Jumping rank and going to the boss’s boss is a very risky move, too. Insecure bosses can become upset and even vindictive – so you have the boss dealing with his problem employee, you. If you are in a situation where a third party, such as the human resources staff, can be use, then do that.

If your boss is more involved, inform her or him. Do not be overly emotional or dramatic. This is making the person aware. The boss will most likely ask others, possibly even the toxic coworker, if there are personality clashes in the lab. If your story seems rational, it is more credible.

A second area to help improve things is to not deal with this issue solo. Most toxic coworkers are egalitarian in their interactions, not being civil, helpful, or useful to anyone. In that case, mutually observing incidents and being ready to corroborate each other’s stories can be useful if the supervisor or HR gets involved. Relying only on your own word to convince them is a gamble. Some toxic coworkers are adept at covering up their actions, blaming you for the problem because you are at fault. He said, she said situations rarely get resolved because a supervisor or HR have to be cautious and that means overly evenhanded – giving the benefit of doubt excessively.

If you and your coworkers have similar experiences, the message to a supervisor or to HR gains credence. Descriptions of different instances of bad behavior to more than one or two individuals will be noticed and have some weight. One caveat, though, is that being aware and supportive cannot take on too strong a tone of coordination. The toxic coworker might spot a conspiracy and even use that as a defense.

In all instances, even though the toxic coworker can make things very personal, do not succumb to reciprocation. That leaves you vulnerable to countercharges. In extreme cases, toxic coworkers can become hostile, vindictive, and dangerous. Remember that your goal is a better work environment and situation, not getting at the toxic coworker.

Finally, if there is an opportunity of one other lab member communicating with the toxic coworker, use that alternative. Sometimes such a coworker will get along better with an individual. Talk to that individual and as him or her to be a conduit or liaison or arbiter.

It always seems funny that there are so many little facts in chemistry that can be important, yet are not common knowledge. I ran into a few on my trips to South Carolina and Nevada.

If you do sulfur speciation in petroleum samples, you will see a peak in many samples, m.w. of 256 and a sulfur detector shows it well. Other peaks dluster in a GC and have masses of192, 224, and 288. Answer to what they are? Elemental sulfur in its alleotropic rings form. Yes, the fluffy yellow powder is most S8, a nonpolar compounds (so it retains on most GC columns).

Water does not have a pH scale from zed to 14 except for one specific condition, standard temperature and pressure. Duh, you say? We are so programmed into 0 to 14 that we need to be reminded that water at any other temperature or under pressure has a smaller or larger scale. It’s in the equations for equilibrium.

NMR is not a structural answer all, nor is crystallography. Both require a fair amount of pure material, milligrams at least. One requires that you obtain nice crystals, which is not always easy. But the other requires a fair solubility in a deutero solvent. Also not always easy. Structure determination is an art within a science.

The non-retained peak in GC or LC is really very slightly retained and is only a close estimate for column volume. Even helium has interactions, small ones, but still there. A bigger, squishier diatomic like nitrogen has even more interactions with the column.

Carbon nanotubes are just fullerenes with more bands of encircled rings. Graphene is just a very, very large alternant polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon. Being given the catchy name does not change the chemical structure. (and graphene has to be made from ultra-ultra high purity graphite or what behavior you see is from the dislocations of heteroatoms or nonplanarity from having rings other than six carbons).

More might follow in the comments if I think of them.