One of the fun “burdens” of blogging is the constant pressure to write new posts with new content. Since I am not Jacques-Yves Cousteau or Henry Kissinger, I have to thrash around for ideas that are compelling yet not in conflict with confidentiality issues related to my career. I have much to say about many fascinating chemistries in diverse industries that, owing to confidentiality, I’ll have to take to the grave. No doubt there are many other bloggers out there who are in the same pickle.
As I get further into this activity I am constantly impressed with the number and variety of really bright people out there writing blogs. I have tried to highlight a few of them on the Blogroll of this site. The flow of good blogs, commercial or amateur(ish), continues to accelerate.
What is disappointing about blogging is the continued growth of snarky, half-assed commentary. I have been fortunate on this blog to receive very thoughtful and insightful comments, and for that I am grateful. I have only edited out a handful of inappropriate responses. I suspect this is due to the specialized nature of this blog, modest visitation rate, and its content. The blogs with the most negative or ill conceived comments seem to be those that are visited by a broader group of participants.
As we move forward with this form of communication, it becomes apparent to me that the need for edited content is as great as ever. Take this blog for example. I could easily take the encyclopedic approach and spend all of my efforts writing pedagogical content. Even if someone liked such content, there would always be the nagging issue of credibility. Without good editors and gate keepers, factual content and editorializing would inevitably meld into a dried brick of pedagogical poundcake that no one could trust. In fact, one could not even trust that the poundcake would be the same from one day to the next.
I’m not sure how we’ll deal whith the problem of unedited content. I am alarmed at the amount of reliance on the www content that I am hearing from university friends and from public school teachers. I think we should all revisit the library for an update on what makes information credible.
Lamentations on Chemistry 
Good point. Sometimes I find I learn a lot from commenters (many readers know more than I do about post subjects since I’m only an undergrad!). There are a few people I will believe without question (Milkshake on anything synthetic, Dave on anything electronic), but it’s usually a better idea to look into things.
The problem I have with being a chemistry related blogger is trying to come up with things that are interesting and potentially useful to read…for some reason, I sometimes find it really hard to write.
For credibility, you can’t beat citations (or data).
I’ve noticed a viscous circle. To get a lot of readership, you need to be controversial. That unfortunately, leads to the snarky comments from others trying to be even more controversial.
Talk radio is the same way. There is no interest in independent thinkers willing to see the 5+ sides of any story. (Two sides to a story? Gimme a break!)
1 ppm diamond wt/wt in kimberlite or lamproite is a fantastic diamond mine. Cornell University abuts a large kimberlite dike absent a mere 1 ppm of diamond. A Liberal would demand funding for diversity mining. Cornell ignores the rock and solicits alumni donations.
Ore that is mostly dross merely requires concentration of contained values. First lust, then laundry. The trick is mining ore and rejecting common dirt. No effort or expenditure can recover what does not exist. Head Start is 45 years overall and $6.6 billion in 2007 funding empirical proof of that.
Now Uncle Al. What is the beef with Head Start?
Head Start is babysitting and feeding slum bunnies freeing their unwed mothers to squeeze out more. Early Start is a $billion/year effort to extend that reach down to frank idiots. Not a single Federal study in 45 years points to any objective intellectual gain conferred.
http://tcmdb.com/title/title.jsp?stid=68336
definitive study
My Kobe beef with Head Start is its annual funding exceeds that of the National Science Foundation itself funding all US physical science. There is no lack of defective meat in the US – 2+ million of them flood across the southern border each year (the Border Patrol can’t find them!). Let’s do the math:
(2×10^6 bodies)/(1951 miles)(365 days) = 3 bodies/mile-day
Looks to Uncle Al that anybody short of a Head Start moron could stem the flow. Bubbas from Georgia or Mississippi with hounds and favorite rifles would pay for the privilege of defending America. 100% border control, zero recidivism, net profit. Let’s fund studies for 45 years.
I believe that the credibility in the blogsphere or any internet-posted sites are somewhat questionable due to its accessibility and liberty that have been given to authors.
organiker (if that is your real name…),
So… Head Start is not doing any good…. as a grant program, one could say that it, like all the US science funding agencies, is trying to breed mediocrity under the guise of innovation.
How many proposals are funded for truly innovative work? How many are funded because the work is the same old mediocre stuff that really is not pushing the bounds of science?
Head Start is a program with a noble cause that is trying to function in a system that is terminally broken.
I can make a few comments on this since I am married to an elementary school Special Education teacher. Under NCLB (No Child Left Behind), the fundamental nature of kindergarten has changed. It used to be that kindergarten was a time to learn social skills and begin to work on the alphabet and counting. Under NCLB, skills that can be tested are emphasized, often to the exclusion of social skills. And, by social skills, I mean things like standing in line, being quiet while others are speaking, following directions. You get the point.
Social skills and having language are critical to the child and to society. Even if the only language the child has is Spanish, language is needed for learning and proper brain development. This is the major argument for bilingual education. A kid needs to be able to communicate in some language, any language, in order for proper intellectual and social development to happen.
Preschool is now almost a necessity in order for children to hit the ground running in kindergarten. Preschool kids are now under pressure to do what were formerly kindergarten activities. There is some variability here, but I can say that in the preschool we operated out of our house for 5 years, we taught the alphabet, number, colors, shapes, etc. in preparation for the NCLB world. And we were booked solid.
Absent Head Start, about 1E6 children would have to find some other means to have health checkups and immunizations. Irrespective of their immigration status, we all benefit from having them immunized and screened for common maladies.
http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-9218/head.htm
Clearly there are problems with Head Start. But we live in a culture that overwhelmingly lavishes attention and resources on advanced technology, weapons, and entertainment. Surely we can at least try to help the neediest of the needy.
Every society must address the 3 questions- 1) How much should the innocent suffer? 2) How much should the guilty be punished? And 3) How do we tell the difference between the two?
Head Start isn’t about high minded intellectual issues as much as it is concerned with meeting very basic educational and public health needs. One study stated that Head Start students who were placed in disadvantaged schools fared worse than their peers by 2nd grade. What wasn’t mentioned in this Wiki reference (one that is disputed, by the way) is that Head Start kids may be from higher risk circumstances to begin with. This matter was apparently not controlled out of the study, or at least mentioned in this secondary reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_Start
An important aspect of Head Start or similar programs is socialization. Kids have to be taught how to live in our culture and how to participate in our customs and this starts early. To socially exclude children who live in our country, legally or not, is to miss an oppportunity to propagate civilization. Poor and disadvantaged children who go to school in the USA need to be treated as respected members of our society and not as mongrel beings unworthy of consideration.
It is a common affliction among the chattering class that the poor are somehow lacking in some fundamental merit. That their destitute condition is somehow their reward for their lack of ability, motivation, or bad luck. I was assured of this just the other day by a wealthy, educated acquaintance. But this self indulgent notion is contemptable and should be seen as a disfigurement.