Monday, July 30, 2018
Wednesday, July 18, 2018
Aphorisms for the Millennial
Some Business Aphorisms
or
or
Fortunes You Have Never Gotten in Your Cookies
2 Delay is the deadliest form of denial Let’s have one more meeting before we agree. Let’s review it one more time. And the litany could continue. This is a corollary of “no is a good answer”.
5 Prior planning prevents poor performance Planning is a key part of business. Prior planning is the most key. Such questions as; what do we need when and what will cause the business to fail are also important issues to plan for. Failure can be precipitated by many factors and measuring failure metrics and having an action plant to counter them is an important part of the overall plan.
6 There may always be rocks from heaven No one is immortal. The end may come silently, over a long time, or as we say with a rock from heaven. When the rock from heaven falls on a key person in a company the remaining players better have a plan ahead of time. All too often that key person is key because the others are not expected to be. When the rock falls the company falls as well. Thus it helps to have a strong a deep team and never have all of them too close together so that one rock can do them all in at once!
7 Listen to a burning bush that speaks When one sees a burning bush, and then one hears it speaking ere are three possible responses; first, I may think I am crazy and just ignore it, second, I may feel fear and run away, and third, I may have some curiosity and listen to what it says. Burning bush moments happen frequently in life. Listening and then taking some action may be the better strategy. The burning bush moment may occur when one sees a new technology and when one then hears what the economics of that technology may do to an industry. It may also be when the stock market starts a downward spiral and one has a day or two to bail out. Listen and then act.
8 Any business whose profits exceed that of the cocaine business will soon be taken over by the Mafia or equivalent. In business plans, new businesses always have very rosy financial perspectives. Also the profits of these new business are generally highly unrealistic from the outset. They may also be unsustainable at any level. Thus, care in assessing hidden costs and price wars must be taken into account. Entrepreneurs, especially ones who have little to no true experience will present plans with truly excessive profit margins, margins exceeding the best in the drug markets. If a business truly has such a margin and can be sustained by means less than shall we say legal, then there is a good chance some unsavory elements may move in and seek the opportunity.
9 Profit is revenue less expenses, and only cash flow counts A small corner store in Brooklyn is a excellent example of understanding business. At the beginning of the week you count the cash, and at the end of the week you count the cash. If it has grown it is a good week, if not you are in trouble. Finance is not complicated unless you are playing games to hide bad decisions. Profit is only one of the factors to be considered, cash flow is the only factor to be considered.
10 If the Business is failing, do an acquisition Whenever a business has problems, especially a big business, they do another acquisition. The market thinks of any lacks of performance due to the transition period, so there is time to hide the developing mess under the smoke screen of an acquisition.
13 Whenever a company builds a grand new edifice, it will soon collapse Companies have the habit of reaching a point and deciding that they need their own new building. The then commence construction and loose focus on day to day execution. The CEO may be spending more time on the seat cover fabric than on the bottom line. One observation that seems to be very consistent through all economic conditions is that whenever a company decides to spend great amounts on a new corporate edifice most likely it occurs just before a great downturn. Just look at Time Warner, Bear Stearns, MCI, Worldcom, and lists of others. To avoid this plague one should stay in smaller offices or grow incrementally. The best example was the ATT massive headquarters. By the way, Verizon is moving into that building now.
14 Always have a second exit No plan is ever fool proof. Thus having second exits, a Plan B possibly, or another way to get around the mountain other than just climbing it is essential. Plan B is not defeat, it is a sign of wisdom.
15 Attila the Hun could get a job as a grief counselor Selecting management personnel is a difficult tasks but the most critical in any company. All too often the same bad person ends up in the same job that he managed to mess up the last ten times. It is amazing to see patterns repeat over and over again. One would not hire Attila the Hun as a grief counselor if one did a brief check on what he did prior to seeking this position. It is critical to check what people did why the left where they left and if your company wants to have that person, perhaps you do, most likely you don’t. 1
16 A deal is not a deal until the money is in the bank, for a week One should no count on something that is one’s sole perception of what could occur. All too often after a meeting with a customer, a vendor, a banker, we all ask each other how did it go and what chance do we have. The answer is that there is zero chance until the deal is done. That means signed, delivered and the money collected.
Monday, July 16, 2018
This is Why They Are Called Daylilies
Beware of CRISPRs
We have been following CRISPRs for a few years now and one of our most referenced papers was on CRISPR and Cancer. That was four and a half years ago. Yet even then we were concerned as to certain errors that could result.
In a recent Nature paper the authors note:
CRISPR–Cas9 is poised to become the gene editing tool of choice in clinical contexts. Thus far, exploration of Cas9-induced genetic alterations has been limited to the immediate vicinity of the target site and distal off-target sequences, leading to the conclusion that CRISPR–Cas9 was reasonably specific. Here we report significant on-target mutagenesis, such as large deletions and more complex genomic rearrangements at the targeted sites in mouse embryonic stem cells, mouse hematopoietic progenitors and a human differentiated cell line. Using long-read sequencing and long-range PCR genotyping, we show that DNA breaks introduced by single-guide RNA/Cas9 frequently resolved into deletions extending over many kilobases. Furthermore, lesions distal to the cut site and crossover events were identified. The observed genomic damage in mitotically active cells caused by CRISPR–Cas9 editing may have pathogenic consequences.
Simply stated there may be errors that result in deleterious effects. This paper is well worth the read.
In a recent Nature paper the authors note:
CRISPR–Cas9 is poised to become the gene editing tool of choice in clinical contexts. Thus far, exploration of Cas9-induced genetic alterations has been limited to the immediate vicinity of the target site and distal off-target sequences, leading to the conclusion that CRISPR–Cas9 was reasonably specific. Here we report significant on-target mutagenesis, such as large deletions and more complex genomic rearrangements at the targeted sites in mouse embryonic stem cells, mouse hematopoietic progenitors and a human differentiated cell line. Using long-read sequencing and long-range PCR genotyping, we show that DNA breaks introduced by single-guide RNA/Cas9 frequently resolved into deletions extending over many kilobases. Furthermore, lesions distal to the cut site and crossover events were identified. The observed genomic damage in mitotically active cells caused by CRISPR–Cas9 editing may have pathogenic consequences.
Simply stated there may be errors that result in deleterious effects. This paper is well worth the read.
Saturday, July 14, 2018
Happy Bastille Day
Allons enfants de la Patrie
Le jour de gloire est arrivé
Contre nous de la tyrannie
L'étendard sanglant est levé (bis)
Entendez vous dans les campagnes mugir ces féroces soldats
Ils viennent jusque dans vos bras, égorger vos fils, vos compagnes
Aux armes citoyens !
Formez vos bataillons !
Marchons, marchons, qu'un sang impur abreuve nos sillons
Always worth remembering. Except perhaps for Robespierre!
Le jour de gloire est arrivé
Contre nous de la tyrannie
L'étendard sanglant est levé (bis)
Entendez vous dans les campagnes mugir ces féroces soldats
Ils viennent jusque dans vos bras, égorger vos fils, vos compagnes
Aux armes citoyens !
Formez vos bataillons !
Marchons, marchons, qu'un sang impur abreuve nos sillons
Always worth remembering. Except perhaps for Robespierre!
Friday, July 13, 2018
An Interesting Observation
G.H. Hardy was a brilliant mathematician, and also had great insight. He wrote in his book, A Mathematician's Apology, the following:
I shall assume that I am writing for readers who are full, or have in the past been full, of a proper spirit of ambition. A man’s first duty, a young man’s at any rate, is to be ambitious. Ambition is a noble passion which may legitimately take many forms; there was something noble in the ambition of Attila or Napoleon: but the noblest ambition is that of leaving behind one something of permanent value—
Here, on the level sand,
Between the sea and land,
What shall I build or write Against the fall of night?
Tell me of runes to grave That hold the bursting wave,
Or bastions to design For longer date than mine.
Ambition has been the driving force behind nearly all the best work of the world. In particular, practically all substantial contributions to human happiness have been made by ambitious men. To take two famous examples, were not Lister and Pasteur ambitious ? Or, on a humbler level, King Gillette and William Willett; and who in recent times have contributed more to human comfort than they?
Physiology provides particularly good examples, just because it is so obviously a ‘beneficial’ study. We must guard against a fallacy common among apologists of science, the fallacy of supposing that the men whose work most benefits humanity are thinking much of that while they do it, that physiologists, for example, have particularly noble souls. A physiologist may indeed be glad to remember that his work will benefit mankind, but the motives which provide the force and the inspiration for it are indistinguishable from those of a classical scholar or a mathematician.
There are many highly respectable motives which may lead men to prosecute research, but three which are much more important than the rest. The first (without which the rest must come to nothing) is intellectual curiosity, desire to know the truth. Then, professional pride, anxiety to be satisfied with one’s performance, the shame that overcomes any self-respecting craftsman when his work is unworthy of his talent. Finally, ambition, desire for reputation, and the position, even the power or the money, which it brings. It may be fine to feel, when you have done your work, that you have added to the happiness or alleviated the sufferings of others, but that will not be why you did it. So if a mathematician, or a chemist, or even a physiologist, were to tell me that the driving force in his work had been the desire to benefit humanity, then I should not believe him (nor should I think the better of him if I did). His dominant motives have been those which I have stated, and in which, surely, there is nothing of which any decent man need be ashamed.
This may sound a bit outdated in today's world, but is has a certain ring of truth. We should not neglect the past assuming that it is irrelevant.
I shall assume that I am writing for readers who are full, or have in the past been full, of a proper spirit of ambition. A man’s first duty, a young man’s at any rate, is to be ambitious. Ambition is a noble passion which may legitimately take many forms; there was something noble in the ambition of Attila or Napoleon: but the noblest ambition is that of leaving behind one something of permanent value—
Here, on the level sand,
Between the sea and land,
What shall I build or write Against the fall of night?
Tell me of runes to grave That hold the bursting wave,
Or bastions to design For longer date than mine.
Ambition has been the driving force behind nearly all the best work of the world. In particular, practically all substantial contributions to human happiness have been made by ambitious men. To take two famous examples, were not Lister and Pasteur ambitious ? Or, on a humbler level, King Gillette and William Willett; and who in recent times have contributed more to human comfort than they?
Physiology provides particularly good examples, just because it is so obviously a ‘beneficial’ study. We must guard against a fallacy common among apologists of science, the fallacy of supposing that the men whose work most benefits humanity are thinking much of that while they do it, that physiologists, for example, have particularly noble souls. A physiologist may indeed be glad to remember that his work will benefit mankind, but the motives which provide the force and the inspiration for it are indistinguishable from those of a classical scholar or a mathematician.
There are many highly respectable motives which may lead men to prosecute research, but three which are much more important than the rest. The first (without which the rest must come to nothing) is intellectual curiosity, desire to know the truth. Then, professional pride, anxiety to be satisfied with one’s performance, the shame that overcomes any self-respecting craftsman when his work is unworthy of his talent. Finally, ambition, desire for reputation, and the position, even the power or the money, which it brings. It may be fine to feel, when you have done your work, that you have added to the happiness or alleviated the sufferings of others, but that will not be why you did it. So if a mathematician, or a chemist, or even a physiologist, were to tell me that the driving force in his work had been the desire to benefit humanity, then I should not believe him (nor should I think the better of him if I did). His dominant motives have been those which I have stated, and in which, surely, there is nothing of which any decent man need be ashamed.
This may sound a bit outdated in today's world, but is has a certain ring of truth. We should not neglect the past assuming that it is irrelevant.
Thursday, July 12, 2018
FCC and Telehealth
The area of telehealth has been an ongoing process of incremental implementation. At one extreme it was merely assisting in the ability to perform diagnoses at a distance. In fact I was one of the earliest developers of such a system for use in radiology. (See 1, 2, 3, 4) All of the original work was done in the late 1980s, some thirty years ago. There is now a rush to provide a variety of such systems but understanding healthcare one must understand efficacy and costs.
Notwithstanding the facts, the FCC has announced a $100 million program in this area apparently based on a single trip to the South! Beckers notes that:
... a commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, on July 11 revealed the agency's plan to establish a $100 million connected care pilot program. The program, which would support the use of telehealth for low-income Americans, spun out of a visit to Mississippi Mr. Carr took six months ago, during which he learned about a remote patient monitoring trial that improved medical outcomes for diabetes patients living in rural areas. Since his visit, Mr. Carr said he has met with telehealth experts and visited rural healthcare facilities to determine how the FCC can support the movement toward "connected care."
The FCC notice on this action notes:
The FCC will vote on a Notice of Inquiry at its August Open Meeting that seeks comment on:
• Budgeting for $100 million in USF support
• Targeting support to connected care deployments that would benefit low-income patients, including those eligible for Medicaid or veterans receiving cost-free medical care
• Supporting a limited number of projects over a two- or three-year period with controls in place to measure and verify the benefits, costs, and savings associated with connected care deployments
Investments in connected care have resulted in substantial savings, particularly in the management of chronic diseases, which account for over 85% of direct health care spending in the U.S.:
• The Mississippi Delta trial resulted in nearly $700,000 in annual savings due to reductions in hospital readmissions alone. Assuming just 20% of Mississippi’s diabetic population enrolled in this program, Medicaid savings in the state would be $189 million per year.
• The Veterans Health Administration’s (VHA) remote patient monitoring program cost $1,600 per patient compared to more than $13,000 per patient for VHA’s home-based primary services.
• A telehealth project in the Northeastern U.S. found that every $1 spent on remote monitoring resulted in a $3.30 return in savings.
The problem is several-fold:
1. First, this is a complex issue relating to cost and efficacy in area which are well outside the expertise of the FCC.
2. Second, there is already a complex set of private sector developments in this area and CMS and other agencies are extensively evaluating them. Modern Healthcare has noted:
CMS on Thursday proposed paying doctors for virtual visits and overhauling Medicare billing standards it has had in place since the 1990s. In a lengthy proposed rule, the agency said it would pay doctors for their time when they reach out to beneficiaries via telephone or other telecommunications devices to decide whether an office visit or other service is needed. In addition, the CMS also proposed paying for the time it takes physicians to review a video or image sent by patient seeking care or diagnosis for an ailment. "This is a big issue for elderly and disabled population for which transportation can be a barrier to care," CMS Administrator Seema Verma said. "We're not intending to replace office visits but rather to augment them and create new access points for patients." Most physicians bill Medicare for patient visits under a relatively generic set of codes that distinguish level of complexity and site of care, known as evaluation and management visit codes. Doctors long have been concerned about the codes' documentation standards. The CMS has used evaluation and management visit codes since 1995.
The CMS proposed allowing practitioners to designate the level of a patient's care needs using their medical decisionmaking or time they spent with the patient instead of applying the decades-old E/M documentation guidelines.
3. It is not at all clear what expertise the FCC brings to bear. It was akin to my time at NYNEX now Verizon. A big opportunity and early entry but a clueless management. They were pole climbers, not diagnosticians.
4. The example of Type 2 Diabetes management is a classic one. As we have noted in a multiplicity of places, management of this disease is all too often a simple problem of diet and weight control. Yet that has always been a stumbling block because we just do not want to admonish patients for their own diseases. However with tobacco we did just that and lung cancer rates for males are plummeting. Fear, trembling and shame may really work, as well as a financial incentive.
5. Telemedicine is not just communications. In fact it barely needs a great deal now. Thirty years ago when I first started this we had 256Kbps lines and 100 Mbps Ethernet. Now we have wireless that beats it hands down. It requires software, medical procedures, changes in coding and billing, physician interaction and facilitation etc. None of this is in the FCC's purview. Thus what does the FCC bring to the table. Such an issue as licensing alone needs to be addressed. If I have a Massachusetts license how do I treat a patient in West Virginia? None of this can be handled by the FCC.
Given the current Federal Deficit one wonders in what Universe this program should see the light of day!
Notwithstanding the facts, the FCC has announced a $100 million program in this area apparently based on a single trip to the South! Beckers notes that:
... a commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, on July 11 revealed the agency's plan to establish a $100 million connected care pilot program. The program, which would support the use of telehealth for low-income Americans, spun out of a visit to Mississippi Mr. Carr took six months ago, during which he learned about a remote patient monitoring trial that improved medical outcomes for diabetes patients living in rural areas. Since his visit, Mr. Carr said he has met with telehealth experts and visited rural healthcare facilities to determine how the FCC can support the movement toward "connected care."
The FCC notice on this action notes:
The FCC will vote on a Notice of Inquiry at its August Open Meeting that seeks comment on:
• Budgeting for $100 million in USF support
• Targeting support to connected care deployments that would benefit low-income patients, including those eligible for Medicaid or veterans receiving cost-free medical care
• Supporting a limited number of projects over a two- or three-year period with controls in place to measure and verify the benefits, costs, and savings associated with connected care deployments
Investments in connected care have resulted in substantial savings, particularly in the management of chronic diseases, which account for over 85% of direct health care spending in the U.S.:
• The Mississippi Delta trial resulted in nearly $700,000 in annual savings due to reductions in hospital readmissions alone. Assuming just 20% of Mississippi’s diabetic population enrolled in this program, Medicaid savings in the state would be $189 million per year.
• The Veterans Health Administration’s (VHA) remote patient monitoring program cost $1,600 per patient compared to more than $13,000 per patient for VHA’s home-based primary services.
• A telehealth project in the Northeastern U.S. found that every $1 spent on remote monitoring resulted in a $3.30 return in savings.
The problem is several-fold:
1. First, this is a complex issue relating to cost and efficacy in area which are well outside the expertise of the FCC.
2. Second, there is already a complex set of private sector developments in this area and CMS and other agencies are extensively evaluating them. Modern Healthcare has noted:
CMS on Thursday proposed paying doctors for virtual visits and overhauling Medicare billing standards it has had in place since the 1990s. In a lengthy proposed rule, the agency said it would pay doctors for their time when they reach out to beneficiaries via telephone or other telecommunications devices to decide whether an office visit or other service is needed. In addition, the CMS also proposed paying for the time it takes physicians to review a video or image sent by patient seeking care or diagnosis for an ailment. "This is a big issue for elderly and disabled population for which transportation can be a barrier to care," CMS Administrator Seema Verma said. "We're not intending to replace office visits but rather to augment them and create new access points for patients." Most physicians bill Medicare for patient visits under a relatively generic set of codes that distinguish level of complexity and site of care, known as evaluation and management visit codes. Doctors long have been concerned about the codes' documentation standards. The CMS has used evaluation and management visit codes since 1995.
The CMS proposed allowing practitioners to designate the level of a patient's care needs using their medical decisionmaking or time they spent with the patient instead of applying the decades-old E/M documentation guidelines.
3. It is not at all clear what expertise the FCC brings to bear. It was akin to my time at NYNEX now Verizon. A big opportunity and early entry but a clueless management. They were pole climbers, not diagnosticians.
4. The example of Type 2 Diabetes management is a classic one. As we have noted in a multiplicity of places, management of this disease is all too often a simple problem of diet and weight control. Yet that has always been a stumbling block because we just do not want to admonish patients for their own diseases. However with tobacco we did just that and lung cancer rates for males are plummeting. Fear, trembling and shame may really work, as well as a financial incentive.
5. Telemedicine is not just communications. In fact it barely needs a great deal now. Thirty years ago when I first started this we had 256Kbps lines and 100 Mbps Ethernet. Now we have wireless that beats it hands down. It requires software, medical procedures, changes in coding and billing, physician interaction and facilitation etc. None of this is in the FCC's purview. Thus what does the FCC bring to the table. Such an issue as licensing alone needs to be addressed. If I have a Massachusetts license how do I treat a patient in West Virginia? None of this can be handled by the FCC.
Given the current Federal Deficit one wonders in what Universe this program should see the light of day!
An Alumni Magazine?
I started getting Scientific American while in High School. My first copy I purchased at a News Stand on Lexington and 52nd Street in May of 1960. I read if from cover to cover. In May of 2000 I terminated my subscription, I could not read a single paragraph in the now newsy rag.
Now skip to Alumni magazines. Their purpose is to communicate with the Alumni, some are good some are well not so good. I get a few and the one from Columbia is just fine. They get the point across without too much preaching.
Now to MIT. Some 20 years ago MIT gave up control, so it appears, to Technology Review. It was half tech updates and half Institute and Alumni material. I looked at it somewhat. Then the new management, from Silicon Valley dot com geeks took over. Barely look at it now at all. They preach their political screeds and try and compete with their flashy peers.
The new Technology Review editor, some fellow who spent time at a British publications and apparently with little of no understanding of MIT, writes:
Unfortunately, those who build technology, those who use and are affected by it, and those who create its legal, regulatory, and financial frameworks—its makers, users, and framers, to coin a shorthand—often aren’t choosing well. Makers are usually too focused on financial success; users cannot see how their lives are gradually but fundamentally changing; and framers rarely understand the inventions for which they are writing laws, rules, or checks. This leads to ill-informed decisions by all three groups. That’s why, along with the redesigned print edition of MIT Technology Review, we're also launching a new mission statement: “to bring about better informed and more conscious decisions about technology through authoritative, influential, and trustworthy journalism.” We think it’s no longer enough for tech journalism to merely explain technology and its ramifications. Rather, it should explicitly strive to make technology more of a force for good, by helping its makers, users, and framers reach better decisions. We’ll do that in a number of ways, including writing more about tech ethics and policy. But we’re also changing the notion of what a printed magazine is for.
Apparently this seems to mean that they will be expanding their political preaching with total disregard for the interest of the Alumni. So who is to make the decisions? The Editor, the writers, and are the people, the alumni out there now, so inept that we need another Brit hand me down to "tell us what to do". Have we been doing such a shabby job as is?
As they say, you cannot make this up. Arrogance along with ignorance is a deadly combination, especially if one is trying to raise alumni support!
Now skip to Alumni magazines. Their purpose is to communicate with the Alumni, some are good some are well not so good. I get a few and the one from Columbia is just fine. They get the point across without too much preaching.
Now to MIT. Some 20 years ago MIT gave up control, so it appears, to Technology Review. It was half tech updates and half Institute and Alumni material. I looked at it somewhat. Then the new management, from Silicon Valley dot com geeks took over. Barely look at it now at all. They preach their political screeds and try and compete with their flashy peers.
The new Technology Review editor, some fellow who spent time at a British publications and apparently with little of no understanding of MIT, writes:
Unfortunately, those who build technology, those who use and are affected by it, and those who create its legal, regulatory, and financial frameworks—its makers, users, and framers, to coin a shorthand—often aren’t choosing well. Makers are usually too focused on financial success; users cannot see how their lives are gradually but fundamentally changing; and framers rarely understand the inventions for which they are writing laws, rules, or checks. This leads to ill-informed decisions by all three groups. That’s why, along with the redesigned print edition of MIT Technology Review, we're also launching a new mission statement: “to bring about better informed and more conscious decisions about technology through authoritative, influential, and trustworthy journalism.” We think it’s no longer enough for tech journalism to merely explain technology and its ramifications. Rather, it should explicitly strive to make technology more of a force for good, by helping its makers, users, and framers reach better decisions. We’ll do that in a number of ways, including writing more about tech ethics and policy. But we’re also changing the notion of what a printed magazine is for.
Apparently this seems to mean that they will be expanding their political preaching with total disregard for the interest of the Alumni. So who is to make the decisions? The Editor, the writers, and are the people, the alumni out there now, so inept that we need another Brit hand me down to "tell us what to do". Have we been doing such a shabby job as is?
As they say, you cannot make this up. Arrogance along with ignorance is a deadly combination, especially if one is trying to raise alumni support!
Wednesday, July 11, 2018
Rare Earths Redux
Some eight years ago we wrote extensively about rare earths and China's actions to control the market. We further noted that for decades the US was the world's supplier of them. We did not run out, we just closed the mine! It was in California and they wanted it closed. The elements are still there folks, lots of them.
Then along comes the NY Times, the paper which seems to be a bit short sighted. They note:
Then along comes the NY Times, the paper which seems to be a bit short sighted. They note:
Rare earth refining is done on a large
scale in only two places on earth: China, and Lynas’s plant here in
Kuantan, Malaysia, a sprawling industrial area on the coast of the South
China Sea. The company mines rare earths out of a collapsed volcano in
Australia and ships them to Kuantan to be refined. Building
that plant nearly sank Lynas. When Ms. Lacaze was named chief executive
in June 2014, the company was struggling with $450 million in debt.
Design flaws had delayed full production. It faced criticism from environmentalists (NOTE: which by the way was the California problem). China is her most immediate challenge.
Lynas is now profitable, but Ms. Lacaze sees a potential trade war
between China and the United States as more of a threat than an
opportunity. Beijing could keep rare earths off the market, depriving
many American and European manufacturers of the minerals they need. Lynas
couldn’t compensate for it all. It accounted for only about 12 percent
of world output of rare earths last year, according to Adamas, the
research firm. Chinese companies accounted for more than four-fifths.
But the US could compensate, and actually dominate the world market. See the MIT status updates. The Times continues:
Even if it doesn’t disrupt the supply, China will likely keep its grip
over the market for rare earths for a long time to come. It also
dominates research and development of these minerals, giving it a leg up
on the future, Ms. Lacaze said. “I think there’s about 100 Ph.D.s in rare earths working in applications
inside China and working in technology development,” she said. “To my
knowledge, do you know how many Ph.D.s there are outside of China?” With
the fingers of her right hand, she made a zero.
I believe she is grossly in error. But leave that aside. Steel and aluminum are important but rare earths are truly strategic. Furthermore the PLA controls Chinese production. Perhaps some one in the current Administration will catch on. The last one never did. Now we have a real problem!
Now Bloomberg notes:
China’s grip on rare-earths supply is so strong that the U.S. joined with other nations earlier this decade in a World Trade Organization case to force the nation to export more of the materials, not less, after prices spiked amid a global shortage. The WTO ruled in favor of the U.S., while prices eventually slumped as manufacturers turned to alternatives. Imposing duties will “bring home to the American public the reality of how much of what they use in everyday life contains these technology metals,” Jack Lifton, the Michigan-based founder of rare earth consulting service Technology Metals Research LLC, said by phone. “The Chinese mine the rare-earths, they separate them, they refine them. This is the long-term trend and a 10 percent tariff will not do anything to stir any domestic production in the U.S.”
The real problem is that the US has the largest Rare Earth reserves, closed down a few decades ago due to "environmental" concerns. Like the Times, Bloomberg seems to be totally oblivious to the availability and the amount in the US. To some degree this is a "Yellow Journalistic" approach in my opinion. The US should and must reinvigorate its own sources, now. Just look at the USGS map!
Now Bloomberg notes:
China’s grip on rare-earths supply is so strong that the U.S. joined with other nations earlier this decade in a World Trade Organization case to force the nation to export more of the materials, not less, after prices spiked amid a global shortage. The WTO ruled in favor of the U.S., while prices eventually slumped as manufacturers turned to alternatives. Imposing duties will “bring home to the American public the reality of how much of what they use in everyday life contains these technology metals,” Jack Lifton, the Michigan-based founder of rare earth consulting service Technology Metals Research LLC, said by phone. “The Chinese mine the rare-earths, they separate them, they refine them. This is the long-term trend and a 10 percent tariff will not do anything to stir any domestic production in the U.S.”
The real problem is that the US has the largest Rare Earth reserves, closed down a few decades ago due to "environmental" concerns. Like the Times, Bloomberg seems to be totally oblivious to the availability and the amount in the US. To some degree this is a "Yellow Journalistic" approach in my opinion. The US should and must reinvigorate its own sources, now. Just look at the USGS map!
The Brits, Class and The Visit
Having spent time in and out of Britain it is clear what "class" means. The British system is class based and in many ways it exceeds any of the characteristics of the Indian caste system. It starts with heritage, who was your family, then moves to education, profession, accent etc. One can almost place a person by the accent alone. The Brits can then align themselves according to where their culture places them. Mobility in the system is almost impossible, since the long line of ancestors often dominates.
The Brits have looked down upon their captive folks, the Empire residents, from the Irish and Indians to the Jamaicans and others. One just need to read de Tocqueville's text on his Irish visit to see this in action. Now it is thus reasonable that a par venue from Queens, New York, the town's name is the utter irony in this case, would cause such a disruption. Coming from Staten Island, before the bridge, I am a New Yorker, but at a time that we could have easily been considered someone from Nebraska! But Queens, the borough that exploded after WW II and is now more ethnically complex than any place in the world, well that is a stretch!
Now along comes a NY Times piece that tells us all of the Brits. The author notes:
When President Trump visits Britain this week, many people here will want to remind him — and the rest of the world — just how nauseating we think he is. He’s new money. He’s perma-tanned. He’s a former reality TV star. He’s American. He’s everything the British, snobs that we are, love to hate. And that’s before we even get started on his ghastly politics.When it comes to making people feel that they don’t belong, nobody does it better than us. America may be the most powerful nation on earth, but Britain is still the snootiest.
This Brit exemplifies what we across the pond who have been exposed to them truly recognize. Now leaving the person targeted aside, they are this way all the time. From the taxi driver to the desk clerk to the museum ticket taker. I had a spare moment once and though I would walk through the museum at Buckingham Palace. resenting my ID the response was negative, a double negative, an Irish name on a US Passport! I was truly beneath contempt! Oh yes, just a reminder, in WW I the US troops had no winter coats so that they got them from the Brits. The Irish from the US then promptly tore off all the buttons which were emblems of the Crown! The coats flapped but we won the War. The author above just reinforces the reason to keep visits to Britain brief!
It will be interesting to see their response. Balloon and all.
The Brits have looked down upon their captive folks, the Empire residents, from the Irish and Indians to the Jamaicans and others. One just need to read de Tocqueville's text on his Irish visit to see this in action. Now it is thus reasonable that a par venue from Queens, New York, the town's name is the utter irony in this case, would cause such a disruption. Coming from Staten Island, before the bridge, I am a New Yorker, but at a time that we could have easily been considered someone from Nebraska! But Queens, the borough that exploded after WW II and is now more ethnically complex than any place in the world, well that is a stretch!
Now along comes a NY Times piece that tells us all of the Brits. The author notes:
When President Trump visits Britain this week, many people here will want to remind him — and the rest of the world — just how nauseating we think he is. He’s new money. He’s perma-tanned. He’s a former reality TV star. He’s American. He’s everything the British, snobs that we are, love to hate. And that’s before we even get started on his ghastly politics.When it comes to making people feel that they don’t belong, nobody does it better than us. America may be the most powerful nation on earth, but Britain is still the snootiest.
This Brit exemplifies what we across the pond who have been exposed to them truly recognize. Now leaving the person targeted aside, they are this way all the time. From the taxi driver to the desk clerk to the museum ticket taker. I had a spare moment once and though I would walk through the museum at Buckingham Palace. resenting my ID the response was negative, a double negative, an Irish name on a US Passport! I was truly beneath contempt! Oh yes, just a reminder, in WW I the US troops had no winter coats so that they got them from the Brits. The Irish from the US then promptly tore off all the buttons which were emblems of the Crown! The coats flapped but we won the War. The author above just reinforces the reason to keep visits to Britain brief!
It will be interesting to see their response. Balloon and all.
Tuesday, July 10, 2018
Supreme Court and Net Neutrality
Let me give a simple example. The First Amendment gives all of us a right to free speech where the Government cannot deny us, especially political speech. One could generally agree with that.
Now the Government grants exclusive licenses to say a cable company or a wireless company to provide access. Let's wait there a bit and consider a simpler example.
Let us assume I want to give a speech, to let the people know of some Governmental problem for which I seek a remedy. However to do so I need a soap box to stand on, perhaps I am height impaired. But the Government granted the exclusive monopoly to the soap box manufacturer. He refuses to sell me a soap box or even rent one. My speech cannot be accomplished. Has the Government violated my First Amendment right?
Well according the Kavanaugh, the soap box company has the right and not me! This is Jesuitic logic at its best. The soap box company can deny me access because I would violate their rights. You cannot make this up folks.
Now the Judge states:
The net neutrality rule is unlawful and must be vacated, however, for two alternative and independent reasons. First, Congress did not clearly authorize the FCC to issue the net neutrality rule. Second and in the alternative, the net neutrality rule violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Under the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994), and Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180 (1997), the First Amendment bars the Government from restricting the editorial discretion of Internet service providers, absent a showing that an Internet service provider possesses market power in a relevant geographic market. Here, however, the FCC has not even tried to make a market power showing. Therefore, under the Supreme Court’s precedents applying the First Amendment, the net neutrality rule violates the First Amendment..... In short, although the briefs and commentary about the net neutrality issue are voluminous, the legal analysis is straightforward: If the Supreme Court’s major rules doctrine means what it says, then the net neutrality rule is unlawful because Congress has not clearly authorized the FCC to issue this major rule. And if the Supreme Court’s Turner Broadcasting decisions mean what they say, then the net neutrality rule is unlawful because the rule impermissibly infringes on the Internet service providers’ editorial discretion. To state the obvious, the Supreme Court could always refine or reconsider the major rules doctrine or its decisions in the Turner Broadcasting cases. But as a lower court, we do not possess that power. Our job is to apply Supreme Court precedent as it stands. For those two alternative and independent reasons, the FCC’s net neutrality regulation is unlawful and must be vacated. I respectfully disagree with the panel majority’s contrary decision and, given the exceptional importance of the issue, respectfully dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc.
Now there are these two points. First, Chevron gives the Administrative agencies broad discretion in implementing the law. Kavanaugh seems to see it as quite narrow with ongoing Congressional authorization for every period and comma and colon. Second, the soap box issue is critical. They the ISPs are for the most part monopolies or at least oligopolies. They control free speech, they delimit free speech. The opinion above is in my opinion without merit. I have previously considered this in detail in a non-Jesuitic manner. My rather Ockhamistic approach uses logic and grammar as clear textual interpretation. The above is in my opinion a clear delimitation of free speech, and is in my opinion a clear breach of the First Amendment.
But it seems the soap box manufacturer's monopolistic lobby has won, for now!
Now the Government grants exclusive licenses to say a cable company or a wireless company to provide access. Let's wait there a bit and consider a simpler example.
Let us assume I want to give a speech, to let the people know of some Governmental problem for which I seek a remedy. However to do so I need a soap box to stand on, perhaps I am height impaired. But the Government granted the exclusive monopoly to the soap box manufacturer. He refuses to sell me a soap box or even rent one. My speech cannot be accomplished. Has the Government violated my First Amendment right?
Well according the Kavanaugh, the soap box company has the right and not me! This is Jesuitic logic at its best. The soap box company can deny me access because I would violate their rights. You cannot make this up folks.
Now the Judge states:
The net neutrality rule is unlawful and must be vacated, however, for two alternative and independent reasons. First, Congress did not clearly authorize the FCC to issue the net neutrality rule. Second and in the alternative, the net neutrality rule violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Under the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994), and Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180 (1997), the First Amendment bars the Government from restricting the editorial discretion of Internet service providers, absent a showing that an Internet service provider possesses market power in a relevant geographic market. Here, however, the FCC has not even tried to make a market power showing. Therefore, under the Supreme Court’s precedents applying the First Amendment, the net neutrality rule violates the First Amendment..... In short, although the briefs and commentary about the net neutrality issue are voluminous, the legal analysis is straightforward: If the Supreme Court’s major rules doctrine means what it says, then the net neutrality rule is unlawful because Congress has not clearly authorized the FCC to issue this major rule. And if the Supreme Court’s Turner Broadcasting decisions mean what they say, then the net neutrality rule is unlawful because the rule impermissibly infringes on the Internet service providers’ editorial discretion. To state the obvious, the Supreme Court could always refine or reconsider the major rules doctrine or its decisions in the Turner Broadcasting cases. But as a lower court, we do not possess that power. Our job is to apply Supreme Court precedent as it stands. For those two alternative and independent reasons, the FCC’s net neutrality regulation is unlawful and must be vacated. I respectfully disagree with the panel majority’s contrary decision and, given the exceptional importance of the issue, respectfully dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc.
Now there are these two points. First, Chevron gives the Administrative agencies broad discretion in implementing the law. Kavanaugh seems to see it as quite narrow with ongoing Congressional authorization for every period and comma and colon. Second, the soap box issue is critical. They the ISPs are for the most part monopolies or at least oligopolies. They control free speech, they delimit free speech. The opinion above is in my opinion without merit. I have previously considered this in detail in a non-Jesuitic manner. My rather Ockhamistic approach uses logic and grammar as clear textual interpretation. The above is in my opinion a clear delimitation of free speech, and is in my opinion a clear breach of the First Amendment.
But it seems the soap box manufacturer's monopolistic lobby has won, for now!
Monday, July 9, 2018
Interesting Drug Prices
In a recent piece in Becker's Hospital Review they list the cities with the highest and lowest drug prices.
They note:
10 most expensive cities for medications
1. New York City — 20.10 percent above national average
2. San Francisco — 12.60 percent
3. Los Angeles — 9.80 percent
4. Philadelphia — 7.90 percent
5. San Diego — 6.40 percent
6. Raleigh, N.C. — 4.30 percent
7. Birmingham, Ala. — 3.90 percent
8. Orlando — 2.80 percent
9. Cleveland — 2.50 percent
10. Sacramento, Calif. — 2.20 percent
10 least expensive cities for medications
1. Columbus, Ohio — 21.70 percent below national average
2. Atlanta — 18.60 percent
3. Houston — 17.40 percent
4. Dallas — 16.90 percent
5. Denver — 16.30 percent
6. Salt Lake City — 11.00 percent
7. Indianapolis — 10.60 percent
8. Washington, D.C. — 10.60 percent
9. Las Vegas — 9.40 percent
10. Tampa, Fla. — 7.30 percent
That looks like a 42% swing! I know New York is expensive, in Manhattan, but all over the city?
They note:
10 most expensive cities for medications
1. New York City — 20.10 percent above national average
2. San Francisco — 12.60 percent
3. Los Angeles — 9.80 percent
4. Philadelphia — 7.90 percent
5. San Diego — 6.40 percent
6. Raleigh, N.C. — 4.30 percent
7. Birmingham, Ala. — 3.90 percent
8. Orlando — 2.80 percent
9. Cleveland — 2.50 percent
10. Sacramento, Calif. — 2.20 percent
10 least expensive cities for medications
1. Columbus, Ohio — 21.70 percent below national average
2. Atlanta — 18.60 percent
3. Houston — 17.40 percent
4. Dallas — 16.90 percent
5. Denver — 16.30 percent
6. Salt Lake City — 11.00 percent
7. Indianapolis — 10.60 percent
8. Washington, D.C. — 10.60 percent
9. Las Vegas — 9.40 percent
10. Tampa, Fla. — 7.30 percent
That looks like a 42% swing! I know New York is expensive, in Manhattan, but all over the city?
Wednesday, July 4, 2018
Propaganda in Today's World
Edward Bernays wrote a book called Propaganda in 1928.
Bernays was a part of the Wilson Propaganda machine in WW I called the US Committee
on Public Information, CPI, the original "fake news" outlet of the
US. An entity funded by taxpayer dollars and ultimately directed by and for
Wilson.
Bernays notes:
Modern propaganda is a consistent, enduring effort to create
or shape events to influence the relations of the public to an enterprise, idea
or group. This practice of creating circumstances and of creating pictures in
the minds of millions of persons is very common.
Virtually no important undertaking is now carried on
without it, whether the enterprise be building a cathedral, endowing a
university, marketing a moving picture, floating a large bond issue, or
electing a president. Sometimes the effect on the public is created by a
professional propagandist, sometimes by an amateur deputed for the job.
The important thing is that it is universal and continuous;
and in its sum total it is regimenting the public mind every bit as much as an
army regiments the bodies of its soldiers. So vast are the numbers of minds
which can be regimented, and so tenacious are they when regimented, that a
group at times offers an irresistible pressure before which legislators,
editors, and teachers are helpless.
The group will cling to its stereotypes, as Walter
Lippmann calls it, making of those supposedly powerful beings, the leaders of
public opinion, mere bits of driftwood in the surf. When an Imperial Wizard,
sensing what is perhaps hunger for an ideal, offers a picture of a nation all
Nordic and nationalistic, the common man of the older American stock, feeling
himself elbowed out of his rightful position and prosperity by the newer
immigrant stocks, grasps the picture which fits in so neatly with his
prejudices, and makes it his own.
He buys the sheet and pillowcase costume, and bands with
his fellows by the thousand into a huge group powerful enough to swing state
elections and to throw a ponderous monkey wrench into a national convention. In
our present social organization approval of the public is essential to any
large undertaking. Hence a laudable movement may be lost unless it impresses
itself on the public mind. Charity, as well as business, and politics and literature,
for that matter, have had to adopt propaganda, for the public must be
regimented into giving money just as it must be regimented into tuberculosis
prophylaxis.
The Near East Relief, the Association for the Improvement
of the Condition of the Poor of New York, and all the rest, have to work on
public opinion just as though they had tubes of toothpaste to sell. We are
proud of our diminishing infant death rate—and that too is the work of
propaganda. Propaganda does exist on all sides of us, and it does change our
mental pictures of the world. Even if this be unduly pessimistic—and that
remains to be proved—the opinion reflects a tendency that is undoubtedly real. …
Bernays then continues to note Propaganda more closely in
Politics. He states:
The great political problem in our modern democracy is
how to induce our leaders to lead. The dogma that the voice of the people is
the voice of God tends to make elected persons the will-less servants of their
constituents. This is undoubtedly part cause of the political sterility of
which certain American critics constantly complain.
No serious sociologist any longer believes that the voice
of the people expresses any divine or specially wise and lofty idea. The voice
of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is made up for it
by the group leaders in whom it believes and by those persons who understand
the manipulation of public opinion. It is composed of inherited prejudices and
symbols and cliches and verbal formulas supplied to them by the leaders.
Fortunately, the sincere and gifted politician is able,
by the instrument of propaganda, to mold and form the will of the people. Disraeli
cynically expressed the dilemma, when he said: “I must follow the people. Am I
not their leader?” He might have added: “I must lead the people. Am I not their
servant?” Unfortunately, the methods of our contemporary politicians, in
dealing with the public, are as archaic and ineffective as the advertising
methods of business in 1900 would be today. While politics was the first important
department of American life to use propaganda on a large scale, it has been the
slowest in modifying its propaganda methods to meet the changed conditions of
the public mind. American business first learned from politics the methods of
appealing to the broad public.
But it continually improved those methods in the course
of its competitive struggle, while politics clung to the old formulas. The
political apathy of the average voter, of which we hear so much, is undoubtedly
due to the fact that the politician does not know how to meet the conditions of
the public mind. He cannot dramatize himself and his platform in terms which
have real meaning to the public. Acting on the fallacy that the leader must
slavishly follow, he deprives his campaign of all dramatic interest. An
automaton cannot arouse the public interest. A leader, a fighter, a dictator,
can. But, given our present political conditions under which every office
seeker must cater to the vote of the masses, the only means by which the born
leader can lead is the expert use of propaganda. Whether in the problem of
getting elected to office or in the problem of interpreting and popularizing
new issues, or in the problem of making the day-to-day administration of public
affairs a vital part of the community life, the use of propaganda, carefully
adjusted to the mentality of the masses, is an essential adjunct of political
life. The successful businessman today apes the politician. He has adopted the
glitter and the ballyhoo of the campaign. He has set up all the sideshows.
He has annual dinners that are a compendium of speeches,
flags, bombast, stateliness, pseudo-democracy slightly tinged with paternalism.
On occasion he doles out honors to employees, much as the republic of classic
times rewarded its worthy citizens. But these are merely the sideshows, the
drums, of big business, by which it builds up an image of public service, and
of honorary service.
This is but one of the methods by which business
stimulates loyal enthusiasms on the part of directors, the workers, the
stockholders and the consumer public. It is one of the methods by which big
business performs its function of making and selling products to the public.
The real work and campaign of business consists of intensive study of the
public, the manufacture of products based on this study, and exhaustive use of
every means of reaching the public. Political campaigns today are all
sideshows, all honors, all bombast, glitter, and speeches. These are for the
most part unrelated to the main business of studying the public scientifically,
of supplying the public with party, candidate, platform, and performance, and
selling the public these ideas and products. Politics was the first big
business in America. Therefore there is a good deal of irony in the fact that
business has learned everything that politics has to teach, but that politics
has failed to learn very much from business methods of mass distribution of
ideas and products.
Now we can examine how this is being tried in New Jersey. The
Hill notes[1]:
New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (D) is approving a bill that
dedicates $5 million to strengthen local media outlets in the state. The state
legislature passed the "Civic Info Bill" late last month, …. The bill
created the Civic Information Consortium — a unique nonprofit developed with
five universities — to promote the spread of news and information throughout
the state. The bill was conceived by the Free Press Action Fund, an advocacy
group on media issues.
The effort is led by The College of New Jersey, Montclair
State University, the New Jersey Institute of Technology, Rowan University and
Rutgers University. The consortium will share the $5 million with local news organizations,
emphasizing "underserved communities, low-income communities and
communities of color," the Free Press Action Fund said. The money was
included in the fiscal 2019 budget, which Murphy signed into law on Sunday. He
is expected to formally sign the legislation creating the consortium soon.
One must ask:
1. Given the exploding tax burden on New Jersey residents,
why this now?
2. As with any Government program it is a camel's nose in
the tent. It is $5 million now and $500 million soon!
3. Having Universities "control" the money means
that in New Jersey, politically hand picked "academic" often with allegiance
to the powers that be get to create and support Propaganda! Remember Bernays.
4. The idea was conceived it is stated by what in my opinion,
based on my experience, is a far left wing organization in DC. Why did they do
this and for whose benefit.
Frankly in my opinion this makes the Wilson era CPI look
like a kindergarten exercise.
Tuesday, July 3, 2018
Exosomes Again
Exosomes are those small sets of material ejected from cells. Cancer cells like all other cells eject these exosomes. A recent paper presents an interesting result; namely that exosomes may excite normal cells to become malignant. This is effectively an infectious scenario for cancer.
In the paper by Stefanius et al they note:
Cancer evolves through a multistep process that occurs by the temporal accumulation of genetic mutations mediated by intracellular and extracellular cues. We observe that exosomes isolated from pancreatic cancer cells, but not normal pancreatic cells, can initiate the first step of malignant cell transformation. Injection of exosome-initiated transformed cells into mice results in aggressive tumor growth. Using proteomic profiling and DNA sequencing of exosome-treated and transformed cells, we show that cancer cell exosomes act as a classic initiator by causing random genetic changes in recipient cells. Our studies provide new insight into a function of cancer cell exosomes and how they might specifically contribute to orchestrated local cell transformation.
This is an interesting result and worth following.
In the paper by Stefanius et al they note:
Cancer evolves through a multistep process that occurs by the temporal accumulation of genetic mutations mediated by intracellular and extracellular cues. We observe that exosomes isolated from pancreatic cancer cells, but not normal pancreatic cells, can initiate the first step of malignant cell transformation. Injection of exosome-initiated transformed cells into mice results in aggressive tumor growth. Using proteomic profiling and DNA sequencing of exosome-treated and transformed cells, we show that cancer cell exosomes act as a classic initiator by causing random genetic changes in recipient cells. Our studies provide new insight into a function of cancer cell exosomes and how they might specifically contribute to orchestrated local cell transformation.
This is an interesting result and worth following.
Politics and Aristotle
Aristotle wrote his work on Politics almost 2500 years ago and it still resonates today. I would suggest that one perhaps take some time and read a bit over the summer breaks. Try to leave behind the vitriol of current life and contemplate on what Aristotle observed then.
I use Copleston (History of Philosophy, V I Part II) to lay forth the ideas. I first read this in detail in the Fall of 1962 just after the Cuban Missie debacle. From Copleston we have a powerful discussion of revolution, against a Constitutional government:
Worth a read.
I use Copleston (History of Philosophy, V I Part II) to lay forth the ideas. I first read this in detail in the Fall of 1962 just after the Cuban Missie debacle. From Copleston we have a powerful discussion of revolution, against a Constitutional government:
Aristotle treats acutely of the various kinds and degrees
of revolution which tend to occur under different Constitutions, of their
causes and the means of preventing them; and, owing to his great historical
knowledge, he was able to give apt historical illustrations of the points he
wished to make. He points out, for instance, that the revolutionary state of
mind is largely brought about by one-sided notions of justice—democrats
thinking that men who are equally free should be equal in everything, oligarchs
thinking that because men are unequal in wealth they should be unequal in
everything. He emphasizes the fact that rulers should have no opportunity of
making money for themselves out of the offices they hold, and stresses the
requisites for high office in the State, namely, loyalty to the Constitution,
capacity for administrative work and integrity of character. Whatever be the
type of Constitution, it must be careful not to go to extremes; for if either
democracy or oligarchy is pushed to extremes the ensuing rise of malcontent
parties will be sure to lead in the end to revolution.
Extremes are always a danger and even today we see that occurring. Beware the words of Aristotle.
In Books Seven and Eight of the Politics Aristotle
discusses his positive views of what a State should be. (i) The State must be large enough to be self-sufficing
(of course Aristotle's notion of what a self-sufficing community actually is
would be altogether inadequate for modem times), but not so large that order
and good government are rendered impracticable. In other words, it must be
large enough to fulfil the end of the State and not so large that it can no
longer do so. The number of citizens requisite for this purpose cannot of
course be arithmetically determined a priori. (ii) Similarly with the territorial extent of the State.
This should not be so small that a leisured life is impossible (i.e. that
culture is impracticable) nor yet so large that luxury is encouraged. The city
should not aim at mere wealth, but at importing her needs and exporting her
surplus. (iii) Citizens. Agricultural labourers and artisans are
necessary, but they will not enjoy citizen rights. Only the third class, that
of the warriors, will be citizens in the full sense. These will be warriors in
youth, rulers or magistrates in middle-age and priests in old age. Each citizen
will possess a plot of land near the city and another near the frontier (so
that all may have an interest in the defence of the State). This land will be
worked by the non-citizen labourers
The above is again prescient. Who is a citizen and borders, and of course limits. Moreover, who is not a citizen.
Aristotle treats acutely of the various kinds and degrees
of revolution which tend to occur under different Constitutions, of their
causes and the means of preventing them; and, owing to his great historical
knowledge, he was able to give apt historical illustrations of the points he
wished to make. He points out, for instance, that the revolutionary state of
mind is largely brought about by one-sided notions of justice—democrats
thinking that men who are equally free should be equal in everything, oligarchs
thinking that because men are unequal in wealth they should be unequal in
everything. He emphasizes the fact that rulers should have no opportunity of
making money for themselves out of the offices they hold, and stresses the
requisites for high office in the State, namely, loyalty to the Constitution,
capacity for administrative work and integrity of character. Whatever be the
type of Constitution, it must be careful not to go to extremes; for if either
democracy or oligarchy is pushed to extremes the ensuing rise of malcontent
parties will be sure to lead in the end to revolution.
Aristotle had a point here. Do we choose our leaders this way? All too often we see excess self aggrandizement. Finally:
The only real guarantee of the stability and prosperity
of the State is the moral goodness and integrity of the citizens, while
conversely, unless the State is good and the system of its education is
rational, moral and healthy, the citizens will not become good. The individual
attains his proper development and perfection through his concrete life, which
is a life in Society, i.e. in the State, while Society attains its proper end through
the perfection of its members. That Aristotle did not consider the State to be
a great Leviathan beyond good and evil is clear from the criticism he passes on
the Lacedaemonians. It is a great mistake, he says, to suppose that war and
domination are the be-all and end-all of the State. The State exists for the
good life, and it is subject to the same code of morality as the individual. As
he puts it, “the same things are best for individuals and states.” Reason and
history both show that the legislator should direct all his military and other
measures to the establishment of peace. Military States are safe only in
wartime: once they have acquired their empire, they rust away like iron and
fall. Both Plato and Aristotle, in their preoccupation with the fostering of a
truly cultural political life, set their faces against imperialist dreams of
military aggrandizement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
