The FAA and Gross Incompetence

 In 1972 I began some work at MIT Lincoln Lab on advanced air traffic control systems. It ran the gamut from radars, tracking and airport surface traffic control. In 1977 I was seconded to the FAA to work on AirSat, and using GPS. At the time I lectured on GPS at GWU, and I gather I was one of the few experts in the area. I spoke with Congress to incorporate GPS as well as advanced ATC systems. Strangely the greatest opponent was Senator Kennedy and his staff. I guess he finally concurred.

Now fifty years later we are no further ahead than in the mid 70s. One example of this mess is the MIT Lincoln Lab group who has spent fifty years and billions working on this. A leader in the group asserts that their major achievement is:

... is invested in cultivating a strong culture of innovation and is deeply committed to diversity and inclusion across the Laboratory. She currently serves as the Executive Sponsor for the Lincoln Laboratory Hispanic/Latinx Network employee resource group

It seems that this person is more involved with DEI things than getting the billions of dollars of technology working.  As the NY Times asserts:

 The Federal Aviation Administration said that the outage, which affected communications and radar displays at the facility in Philadelphia, occurred just before 4 a.m. and lasted about 90 seconds.
A similar outage of about 90 seconds last week, on a Monday afternoon, upended travel at the airport, leaving controllers with no way to communicate with pilots and keep planes from crashing into one another. Several controllers working that afternoon were distressed by that episode and took time off, which resulted in several days of low staffing at the facility, causing widespread flight delays and cancellations.

 Now loss of telecom connectivity is a demonstration of gross incompetence in my opinion and my experience. In building my fiber network in Eastern Europe I demanded fail safe systems. Diversity touting and redundancy. If the FAA moved things to Philly then there should have been several alternate route for a fail safe system. Instead, after five decades we are still providing a mid 20th century system. Heads should roll, publicly. The Secretary of Transportation should not spend time saying what is wrong but fix it from day 1 on the job. Stop the Press announcements and solve the problem. 

One simple solution is that there should be no politicians in charge, just operations thugs, solving problems, cleaning out the stables, and no press meetings. Also stop the praise of their DEI efforts, lives are at risk.

 

It's a Shame

 The NCI has abandons its web page. They note:

Due to restructuring and reductions in force at the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Cancer Information Highlights bulletin will no longer be published.  

At most it was a 1 person job. It was powerfully useful in understanding what NCI was up to. I think they may be cutting too deeply.

"Sweetheart"

 The article in the NY Times presents just the tip of human arrogance in medicine. It begins with elder speak, the way medical support workers deal with their customers, or shall we say patients. 

When I first started to study medicine I got a copy of Harrison's, a Bible of Internal Medicine. The first chapter told physicians how to speak with patients. One called them Mr or Mrs or Miss Jones etc. Never call a patient by their first name unless you are colleagues and even then one called each other Doctor.

What has happened are the following:

First the employees speaking this was are the lowest paid care givers. They are generally uneducated, paid minimal wage and use this speak as a way of dominating the people in their care. It is the only time in their lives they can give orders or even denigrate others when they have often been denigrated.

Second in the olden days the physician was a god. All answered to the physician and the patient received equal treatment. Now the physician is terrified of the Administrators, generally uneducated but politically connected and over paid managers and moneymakers of medical institutions.

Third, the loss of RNs, professionals in medicine and the explosion of the uneducated care givers means that no one is trained to do anything professionally.

 My general approach is to not become a weakling but to dress properly, be well groomed, speak clearly and if necessary speak down to those trying to be in control. All it takes is a bit of astute medical questioning. Yet the first instance almost always is an interface with the "sweetheart" babes especially in New Jersey!

Interesting: From Congress

 The Congressional pages note:

 The federal government has broad authority over the admission of non-U.S. nationals (aliens) seeking to enter the United States. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government may exclude such aliens without affording them the due process protections that traditionally apply to persons physically present in the United States. Instead, aliens seeking entry are entitled only to those procedural protections that Congress has expressly authorized. Consistent with this broad authority, Congress established an expedited removal process for certain aliens who have arrived in the United States without permission.

In general, aliens whom immigration authorities seek to remove from the United States may challenge that determination in administrative proceedings with attendant statutory rights to counsel, evidentiary requirements, and appeal. Under the streamlined expedited removal process created by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and codified in Section 235(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), however, certain aliens deemed inadmissible by an immigration officer may be removed from the United States without further administrative hearings or review.

INA Section 235(b)(1) applies only to certain aliens who are inadmissible into the United States because they either lack valid entry documents or have attempted to procure their admission through fraud or misrepresentation. The statute generally permits the government to summarily remove those aliens if they are arriving in the United States. The statute also authorizes, but does not require, the government to apply this procedure to aliens who are inadmissible on the same grounds if they have been physically present in the country for less than two years.

Immigration authorities currently apply expedited removal in more limited fashion than authorized by statute—in general, the process is applied strictly to covered aliens (1) apprehended when arriving at a designated port of entry; (2) who arrived in the United States by sea without being admitted or paroled into the country by immigration authorities, and who had been physically present in the United States for less than two years; or (3) who were found in the United States within 100 miles of the border within 14 days of entering the country, who had not been admitted or paroled into the United States by immigration authorities. Nevertheless, expedited removal has accounted for a substantial portion of the alien removals each year. And in July 2019, DHS announced that it would expand expedited removal within the broader framework of INA Section 235(b)(1) to eligible aliens apprehended in any part of the United States who have not been admitted or paroled by immigration authorities, and who have been physically present in the country for less than two years. A federal district court, however, has enjoined the implementation of this expansion pending a legal challenge.

 

 

Back of the Envelope

 I thought it would be worth a back of the envelope calculation for the "due process" costs for the putative 12 million immigrants. Let me consider just one and you can then just multiply. Now this is a very rough estimate.

Legal costs: Let us assume the Government pays for both their attorney and the immigrants attorney. Let us assume the attorney gets $500 per hour. The attorney then meets the client, prepares a brief, makes a filing, prep the client, prepares several other briefs, goes to court. There may also be an appeal. This can easily be 40 to 50 hours so we have for the immigrant attorney  are the low end $20,000 and perhaps another $10,000 for an appeal. Add in the Governments costs we may reach a fully loaded cost of $50,000

Support Costs: The immigrant had Medicaid, Food Stamps, phones, and other living expenses. Using Government numbers we have $8,000 per year for Medicare, $3,000 for food stamps, $1,000 for phones and often another $2,000 for living assistance. This is a total of $14,000 per year.

Total support costs: Now we assume at the very best the immigrant gets a trial in 2 years and an appeal in 2 years. That is 4 years at $14,000 per year. Let us round it down to $50,000 total.

 Total Costs per Immigrant: Simply $100,000

Total Costs: 12 million time $100,00 equals $1.2 trillion! 

Has anyone done this calculation? I may be off here and there but it may very well be in the ballpark. Who do we send the bill to?

Nothing Is Secure

 In a NY Times piece they note that some anonymous sources state that a certain Secretary had a secure conversation where they spoke with others about a certain action. This secure conversation was leaked. Now just how could that be done you say. Well the US has an agency that examines any and all communications. It can break codes, listen to anyone, looks for certain words or persons etc. The recent past head was relieved of their duty at this organization. Perhaps they might have left behind dome friends who might be upset. Then perhaps these friends sought a remedy and perhaps this Government employee was clueless about how Washington works. 

So maybe we need a more experienced person, ya think! Back in my day in the Evil City in the Swamp one knew whatever you said, wherever you went, whoever you spoke to, there were at least a dozen eyes, ears etc on the lookout! So be careful, But the person in question knows they are a target which means one must be holier than Caesars wife, kind of.

Thomas Merton, Seventy Years Later

The book by Thomas Merton, Seven Storey Mountain, was published in 1948. Merton went on to achieve fame for his theological/mystical writings. I first read Merton’s book in 1955. It was at that time a seven year old text. I was in Catholic School, and was influenced by the Franciscan priest who was saying Mass at our church. As many young men in the 50s I thought of entering the seminary and becoming a priest. The door to that exploration was via the Franciscan Pro-Seminary located but a few miles from my house. I would cycle up the steep hill on Saturdays and spend time understanding what was involved in a vocation as a Franciscan. The priest became a long time mentor but at the beginning he gave me a copy of Merton’s work. I guess he did so to enlighten me by as a young man much so Merton was of a man living a life I could at best dream of. Merton was privileged, educated, uncertain, and at times rambling. But I read it in total. As for the vocation, poverty and chastity were no problem, but the obedience thing really got to me. I gather Merton had no problem there. It would not be until some sixty years later when reading St Francis’ revised Second Rule that I saw Francis saying in a somewhat paraphrased manner; “well the obedience issue can sometimes be problematic, if all else fails follow you conscience”. That to me explained Ockham and the battle with Avignon. But alas Merton never got that far.

 Having now read Merton some seventy years later I was surprised how my life and experiences have dramatically refocused this work. In the 50s Catholicism was strong, well organized and focused. The Mass was in Latin in every country, Catholic schools were everywhere, and Rome ruled unquestioned. Furthermore the Church had its philosopher, St Thomas Aquinas, and the mid century philosophers in Gilson and Maritain. The Church was on a strong foundation. Thus in the 30s, the time frame of Merton, the Church was in much the same condition but the world was in the midst of an economic collapse and anticipating the Huns and their advancement. Thus a 50s reader sees Merton in the timeframe of the 50s, post War and economically secure. Today’s reader sees a weakened Church, political conflict, and a fundamental lack of foundation for Catholic understanding.

 My view today of Merton’s work is massively different than that of the 50s. In the 50s I saw Merton on a path to faith. In today’s world I see Merton as a “posh boy” wandering the world without a care or a job. One wonders how he managed to float across Europe with little cares. His father an erstwhile painter, his mother ill and a fellow follower. He had the good fortune of a well to do grandparents. One now wonders what a normal child of the 30s was like, in the midst of the Depression, seeking to eke out a living with a paper route, washing dishes and the youths journey was at best on the A train from Brooklyn to Manhattan. One wonders what the wistful wanderings of Merton add to his religious enlightenment.

 The on to Columbia, the bastion of Catholic hatred by many of its faculty. He becomes a Communist with no understanding of what a Communist is. One asks if this were to be his true path to God. One reads about his studies at Columbia, and one wonders if this were the 2020s how he could ever afford it? Yet then it was affordable. His studies seem to be what he likes, with no emphasis on getting a job! Again displaying his class as one assured of some form of continued success by means of class.

 The turning point seems to be his reading of Gilson and the Medieval Philosophers. Now Gilson is a Thomist, and Thomism was but one of many philosophical movements in the Church. Merton seems affixed by Thomas and this begins his search for something, some meaning of life. As WW II approaches he fortunately gets a 4F rating for having lost too many teeth. In the 50s that passed me by but now in the 20s it struck me as strange. A somewhat wealthy young man spending time all over Europe and educated with degrees at Columbia having less than half his teeth. That became a symbol of his life to that time.

 He thus begins his journey to Catholicism. The structure, the somewhat Medieval symbolism and ambiance drives him forward. He gets baptized and starts on a path to full participation. The strangest part is his desire to become a priest just after no more than two years. It at first appears as just another one of his jumps. He starts with the Franciscans in New York City. Fortunately the Franciscans are concerned as to his rapid choices, more importantly his motivation and maturity. Why they wonder is this young man so eager to join their order. They see his many jumps in life and are concerned that this may very well be just another. They sensitively turn him down. Rejected his finds an alternative, the Trappists. He follows this path and gives us, the reader, the tale of a monk asking, at first, if he wants to enter, him saying no, and upon his second visit, the monk saying he had expected his return. Thus unlike the Franciscans he had found a home. Thus the end of the journey to his new home, with meaning and security.

 One asks how this book has merit in the current times. For the 50s, devout Catholics could see this as a victory over the worldly lives of the unredeemed. In the 20s of today, one may see a youth wandering with no guidance, yet having the financial support to do so, while the world around is in the midst of financial and political collapse. He seems almost oblivious to this. He seems quite comfortable at Columbia seeking wisdom from the literature presented to him, while a mere 10 blocks north people are barely surviving in the financial downturn. In the 50s one could ignore that view, in the 20s one wonders how this could not have been avoided being seen and commented upon.

Are "Scientists" Really That Smart?

 Nature has an interesting piece on scientists and tattoos! Yep, cool scientists are getting tattooed along with Secretaries of Defense and all the lonely people. Nature notes:

... had wanted a tattoo for years, so when she finished her neuroscience PhD in 2019, she knew it was time. “It made sense that once I had my PhD, I would commemorate it this way,” she says. Barry’s research focused mainly on hearing-loss disorders, such as tinnitus, and she spent a lot of time looking at auditory thalamus neurons, the nerve cells that help to process sound. These were often stained using the Golgi method, highlighting the neuron’s cell body and dendrites that resemble tree roots and tendrils — and would make for a good fine-line tattoo.  In 2021, she got the tattoo — aptly, behind her ear. “I really didn’t expect my tattoo to play as much of a part in my identity, but it just felt right,” says Barry, who is now a research fellow at the University of Western Australia and Curtin University in Perth. She’s not alone. Many scientists mark research accomplishments and career milestones by heading to a tattoo par

However, less than a year ago a Lancet article noted:

 The popularity of tattoos has increased dramatically over the last few decades. Tattoo ink often contains carcinogenic chemicals, e.g., primary aromatic amines, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and metals. The tattooing process invokes an immunologic response that causes translocation of tattoo ink from the injection site. Deposition of tattoo pigment in lymph nodes has been confirmed but the long-term health effects remain unexplored. We used Swedish National Authority Registers with full population coverage to investigate the association between tattoo exposure and overall malignant lymphoma as well as lymphoma subtypes.

 That is not at all surprising. Tattoos elicit a massive immune response, resulting in methylation of histones and resulting in suppression and activation of lymphoma generating genes! Do these scientists have a clue!

Rare Earths

 Some fifteen years ago I wrote about the risk of relying upon China for rare earths. Now we see that China in this trade war is blocking them. The problem is we have unlimited sources but they are blocked by California environmentalists. Perhaps the current Administration could nationalize these sources and manage to get the US back on track.

Fishing and Tariffs

 So what do they have in common. The fly fisher carefully selects the fly, the spot, the time of day, using a select rod, and has great skill and attention. On the other hand the fisher who wants lots and now, takes a piece of dynamite out in a boat, sets it off, gathers lots of fish. 

The Tariff issue is the same. One could look at every country, every trade, consider the positives and negatives then propose something to a Committee. Or, you could just thrown a piece of dynamite and get the answers real quick!

The Ideal College President

 While in Russia with my local colleagues we discussed managers and styles. We even discussed College Presidents. Now I was not your typical American. I spoke a little Russian, I took the Metro not a limo, and I did not belong to a super big American Corporation. My colleagues in other countries saw the difference as well. 

But in discussing management styles, they often said I reminded them of the Dean of the Joe Stalin School of Management. Whether a compliment or an observation of my rather heavy fisted style, I did not eliminate anyone, I found that interesting.

One sets out goals, gets concurrence, the assigns tasks and expects results. No results, no job.

Perhaps a Dean of the Joe Stalin School of Management could be the next Columbia President. But beware of the Trustees! Joe knew how to deal with them.

To The Outgoing President

 I knew this would happen. It was a suicide mission from the get go. Now it is headed by a former Newscaster! So for the outgoing one:

If you can keep your head when all about you

Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,

But make allowance for their doubting too;

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,

Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,

Or being hated, don't give way to hating,

And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

 

If you can dream -- and not make dreams your master;

If you can think -- and not make thoughts your aim;

If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster

And treat those two imposters just the same;

If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken

Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,

And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools;

 

If you can make one heap of all your winnings

And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,

And lose, and start again at your beginnings

And never breathe a word about your loss;

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew

To serve your turn long after they are gone,

And so hold on when there is nothing in you

Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"

 

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,

Or walk with kings -- nor lose the common touch,

If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,

If all men count with you, but none too much;

If you can fill the unforgiving minute

With sixty seconds' worth of distance run --

Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,

And -- which is more -- you'll be a Man, my son!

 

The Three Rules of Spy-craft (Intelligence)

 Just a reminder of the three rules.

1. Trust no one

They are all out to get you and I mean all!

2. Never put it in writing.

Especially using a smart phone. One might as well use billboards. Of course this was already approved but it violates Law 2

3. Always make sure there is a second exit.

In this case someone else to blame. Still do not know who put the call list together unless they are now in some secure location never to be found again. You see Principals never do things like this. They should have had a system telling all at least who is listening but I gather no one knew.

This is not a fiasco of the Principals as much as a systemic incompetence of employees.

Red and Black

 Back in the 70s when I had some work in a secure world environment, one went to a secure facility to read or converse with regard to items marked above a certain level. The security was high, one was vetted before entering and upon departure. There were slip-ups such as the classic one of the Falcon and the Snowman in a secure facility in California, but for the most part it worked.

Now this current Signal fiasco is the result of a bunch of tyros pretending to be smart. "Trust no one" is the first rule of secure intel. Using your mobile phone is the equivalent to posting your info on a billboard on I95! 

Clearly the folks involved in the "secure" conversation should be reprimanded at the very least.  Assuming all was secure reading it in a public environment is itself a risk. I recall one a Navy Captain left a set of nuclear plans at a bar in Albuquerque. Not a career builder. However the bartender was a retired USAF Master Sergent. He knew what it was and he had a duty as an American not to have this slip into the wrong hands. Thus the plans were saved. A true patriot when they see something amiss does not for personal aggrandizement spread the knowledge about.

A security officer should vet all such communications before they occur. Perhaps it is just a generational issue. Perhaps it is maturity.

Also, it  must be noted that anyone who finds themselves inadvertently in a secure communications should inform the communicators and not just  spread the results. Ethical behavior is essential, but I guess after all it is just the Press.

Abject Nonsense

 I knew Vannevar Bush and this fellow is no Vannevar Bush. The NY Times author states:

 As developed by Bush, the compact between the American government and the universities created the National Science Foundation and reorganized the National Institutes of Health. The central message of the compact was this: The United States would commit taxpayer dollars to fund research primarily through its universities, not through government-controlled laboratories. The universities would be given intellectual autonomy to conduct research deemed by peer scientists and engineers to be of the highest potential to advance the country. The government would not invade the space of free inquiry and academic freedom, because that would limit the ability of scientists to be fully creative.

Now the first part of the above is true. The last sentence is in my opinion more a creation of the author to justify the assault on students, faculty and staff at Columbia. Scientists and Engineers, to be proper and correct, Bush was an Electrical Engineer at MIT before his trip to DC, and the Government support was for both science and engineering. The Government support was limited by statements of work. I cannot think of any open ended checks being sent. The Government support had work statements. One could not do whatever one thought of interest. That last statement is wrong. If an academic had some idea outside the scope of work, fine, go somewhere to get support, such as a VC.

 

 

Columbia and Me

 Columbia University has had some bumpy patches lately to say the least. Specifically they seem to focus on its identity as a University as a center of “free speech” rather than an instruction of learning. Is Columbia nothing more than a site for unfettered protests against whatever is the current mode, or is it an entity for education, and education in such matters that are meaningful and productive for the advancement of humanity? So let’s start with the question; what is a University? I use Newman’s definition to start[1]:

The view taken of a University in these Discourses is the following:—That it is a place of teaching universal knowledge. This implies that its object is, on the one hand, intellectual, not moral; and, on the other, that it is the diffusion and extension of knowledge rather than the advancement. If its object were scientific and philosophical discovery, I do not see why a University should have students; if religious training, I do not see how it can be the seat of literature and science.

This definition, now some hundred years old, is highly defective in today’s world. For an essential element of a University is the extension of knowledge. It is not simple the reiteration of what is known, but the extension of what can be known. Thus science is itself an unending search for new understanding. It is often done in some form of dialectic, an intellectual battle over understanding. One need only look at the discovery of DNA and its functions as the source of life. At the same time as Watson and Crick had been working on their world view of DNA as an agent, many others looked towards proteins, not the messy side substance of DNA. Without the intellectual battles we would not have science. The universities are excellent intellectual battle grounds for such developments. Yet one must remember that they are not the sole keepers of such a process. In fact the “amateur”, those outside the hallowed walls of the university, contribute often equally if not more so. One need look no farther than Einstein and his marvelous year of 1905.

Thus a University must deal with the past, present , and future. It must take the past and understand it and explain it to students. It must take the present and interpret it for its strengths and weaknesses. It must also prepare for the future by extending the present, through research and educating the next generation. Oftentimes the key process that a University must engender is the ability to ask the right question. For many advancements were based upon the asking of the right question.

How does this set of understandings impact the current state of instability at Columbia. I will try to place this in some person historical context as a means to best demonstrate a person metric for my opinion. Over the past sixty five years I have had a mixed set of relations with Columbia University. Some good, some not so good. But my personal experience in a sense provides for a glimpse at its seeds of destruction as well as seed for regrowth.

In 1960 I applied to Columbia to study Mathematics. I received a four page single space letter from Dean Donald Barr, father of the former Attorney William Barr. The Dean wrote that I should consider alternatives since I was Catholic and Columbia was not a place for Catholics. Specifically it would challenge my beliefs and make my university experience too challenging. Fortunately MIT did not ask about my religion. MIT only looked at my NY State Regents scores, my SATs, and that was that. I suspect I would not be allowed into MIT today due to not being Catholic but my gender and race delimits my chances. Not to mention my current age.

I explored Columbia and read many books by Prof Hofstadter who was in the History Department at Columbia in the 30s to 60s. Hofstadter was a belligerent anti-Catholic, his writing boil with his vitriolic views of the religion and its adherents. I could see why being a Catholic would disqualify be in the eyes of the faculty. Columbia was a rats nest of Communists in the 30s and yet strangely became a center for Naval Officers training in the 40s. All one need do is read William Barrett’s book, The Truants, to see the 30s and the Communist intrigues.

In the mid-60s, Fall of 1964, I was asked by some friends to go down to Columbia to an anti-War protest. Since I was on my way home anyhow I went but getting near the campus the rioting was extreme. My first thought was that I may get arrested by my father who was on the NY Police force, not something I wanted so I got on the subway and went home. But the rioting and anger was visceral, one could fell it. I gathered this was a first for Columbia and they could not handle it well.

In the early 90s I was asked to join the Faculty of the Business School for a year and as a Visiting Professor I taught courses. It was a peaceful period and the campus was open and free flowing. The students were in my opinion somewhat marginal, but then again I was experienced in MIT EECS students, intellectually many levels above these business students.

In the last decade I have been on some advisory boards at the Columbia’s Medical Center. A different world located in a different place. My peers were all successful and well respected individuals and we were apart from the campus. The Medical campus is up at 168^th St whereas the University one is down at 121^st St. A world of difference. Medicine, like science and engineering, have end products. The health of the patient, the validity of the experiment, the stability of a bridge. There may be debates as to how best care for a patient, but the end point is patient recovery, not some ethereal debating club.

Thus my sixty five year journey in and around Columbia has provided me a window on understanding some of its inherent weaknesses. Or possibly its fatal flaws. Much of these weaknesses are of its own making. But I have seen the good and bad at Columbia. The good in its providing essential health services to those in need. The bad, allowing students, faculty, and third parties a battle field to assert their threats and attacks on their selected enemies.

Now Columbia has had a long history of extreme left wing politics. Allowing riots on campus, and even facilitating outright hostile prejudice to certain classes of people. The current problems at Columbia are not new but in my opinion merely an extension of its long culture of social extremism. But the problems can be mitigated if not totally avoided by good leadership. Thus my personal journey through Columbia let me see what happens with weak if not just down right incompetent leadership. Leadership starts at the top.

This then begs the question; what is the function of the President? Secondly; what is the function of the Federal Government. Clearly if the Federal Government had no presence on campus, meaning had no funding of the work, and the Federal Laws were inapplicable, then the Government would have to stand aside and allow local authorities deal with issues. Yet over the past eighty some years the Universities has become more reliant on the Federal Government to the extent that if there were no funding then there would be no University. Part of that reason is that Universities in general have exploded in Administrative overhead. Thus the Federal Government can elicit forms of control as a quid pro quo. It is hardly unexpected. In fact most large universities have Washington DC offices as well as lobbyists. Thus it cannot be said that they fail to grasp the concern.

The other issue is; what is the function of a President of a university. In my opinion and in my experience the President has three functions. First, raise money! That means keeping donors, mostly alumni/ae happy. Second make sure the university stays in good stead with research funders such as Government and industry. The key element here is not to bite the hand that feeds you. Keep the Government and industry happy. Third, tuition and education. Here the interest is to make the product that the buyers are willing to pay for. Namely an education that benefits them in life and en environment conducive to a successful learning experience. That means a safe and supportive campus environment and courses that will benefit the student in our society.

For the most part, Presidents are focused outwards They must in many ways be neutral, but provide leadership, reflect the values of the institution. The latter means in my experience that Presidents must understand deeply their institution. In my experience at MIT the best President were individuals who had spent their career at the Institute. The poorest ones were outside hires who were in many ways clueless about the Institute and its ways. I see that this applies broadly to many universities.

The President must focus on the three sources of revenue. Failure to do so means a collapse in the near term. Moreover the President cannot be run amok by the faculty or politically motivated third parties. The Faculty is there to teach, not proselytize. In the NY Times the writer notes[2]:

A spokeswoman for the Department of Education, one of three federal agencies named in the letter to Columbia, did not respond to questions about the rationale for the receivership. In a letter to the university on Wednesday, Columbia’s interim president, …, seemed to acknowledge the growing concern over how the school might respond. “Legitimate questions about our practices and progress can be asked, and we will answer them,” … wrote. “But we will never compromise our values of pedagogical independence, our commitment to academic freedom or our obligation to follow the law.”

One should ask what does pedagogical independence mean? Does it mean that the Faculty can do whatever they want? Does that conflict with the duties of a President. If it aggravates the alumni, the funders, and if it creates a hostile environment at the university, then what? The Faculty are employees of the university. They are not the owners, they are not the management. They are there to provide a useful education to the students. Academic freedom is just a crutch for pedagogical independence. The faculty have a duty of care, to educate in a safe, non-hostile, and open environment. The faculty provides a service. They are paid for that service. A mechanical engineering professor is obliged to teach that subject, to perform research in that area. If the professor has certain political views, then there is a time and place for that, not so as to interfere with the students, AKA the customer. If an oncology attending is dealing with residents, then the focus is on oncology not some social imperative.

In summary, a President of a University has affirmative duties to a wide audience, not just to the Faculty. The Faculty has a duty to the University and to the students. But recent events seems to indicate that at Columbia there may be second thoughts[3]. Specifically as noted in the Times:

Columbia’s interim president, …, said in a letter Friday afternoon that the university’s response was part of its effort to “make every student, faculty and staff member safe and welcome on our campus.” “The way Columbia and Columbians have been portrayed is hard to reckon with,” Dr. Armstrong said. “We have challenges, yes, but they do not define us.” She added: At all times, we are guided by our values, putting academic freedom, free expression, open inquiry, and respect for all at the fore of every decision we make.”

It is not clear that these words are fully understood. Perhaps it requires the stick before the carrot. But the issue of academic freedom and free speech should not exclude safety and be of equal merit for any speaker.

---

[1] Newman, Joh Henry, What is a university, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/24526/24526-pdf.pdf

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/20/us/columbia-university-receivership-trump.html

 

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/21/nyregion/columbia-response-trump-demands.html

 

Two Pieces of Toast

 

 I took a trip to a Verizon store to buy a new mobile phone. The trip reminded me of Jack Nicholson in Five Easy Pieces. All he wanted was two pieces of toast. The waitress was less than customer friendly. This also was the folks at Verizon. Here goes:

1. I walked into the store and dutiful registered my presence. I then waited about twenty minutes as the two sales folks go finished with their customers.

2. Then a sales person came to me and "demanded" to see my drivers license. I made my first mistake, I asked "why". She then responded as some KGB agent at the border indicating it's the "rule", but lacking an accent. She now supposedly knew I was who I was and she asked my why I was there. I assume perhaps she may have thought it was for an oil change or some bark mulch. I noted I wanted to buy a new Samsung phone to replace my old one which she held in her hand.

3. Off to the set of phones which I had already perused and I said to her, "This one". Well she was now non-stop. I was being told about improved plans, discounts on phones, monthly charges, but no two pieces of toast. I told her I was here just to but "this phone". She then told me she did not like my attitude. I told her I would write the CEO. She then told me she would get the manager! Gone! She frankly in my opinion was one of the nastiest and arrogant individuals I have ever met. My refusal to play along with her script just drove her to total instability.

4. So I stood there, no toast or phone, waiting I assume for the "Manager"

5. Then after a bit the "Manager" cam out. He wore a light grey crumpled sweat shirt, scruffy beard, gold chain around his neck, full head of black curly hair. An extra from Jersey Shore perhaps.

6. I then said I want to "buy this". He began the same litany as the sales clerk. I said "Stop, I want this" He look shocked. I repeated "I want to buy this"

7. Finally he looked at me and said he did not have it in stock but could send it to me. I said, "Why not tell me that in the first place" and out I went. No "toast" and no phone.

One wonders why Verizon has been performing so poorly. Well to find out just try to get "two pieces of toast" Clearly the company had developed the worst culture and the most incompetent management I have ever seen.

Oh yes and BTW, I was a Senior VP and COO of NYNEX Mobile, the predecessor of Verizon Wireless. I always told my folks, "If all else fails listen to the customer!" Clearly they have forgotten this. I thought of writing the CEO but after he almost a decade at the helm he has, in my opinion and my experience, single handedly destroyed a great company.

Is China at it Again?

 In a recent Cell article the Chinese researchers note:

 Zoonotic spillover is believed to be responsible for the outbreaks of SARS, MERS, and COVID-19. 

Bats harbor the highest proportion of genetically diverse coronaviruses (CoVs) and are considered potential natural reservoirs of the three highly pathogenic human CoVs, SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2. 

SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV were documented transmitted to humans via game animals (e.g., civets) or domestic animals (e.g., dromedary camels), whereas the intermediate hosts for SARS-CoV-2 remain unclear.Both in vitro and in vivo studies have demonstrated that bat merbecoviruses, which are phylogenetically related to MERS-CoV, pose a high risk of spillover to humans, either through direct transmission or facilitated by intermediate hosts 

The identification of bat-related merbecoviruses in pangolins (HKU4-CoV) and minks (HKU5-CoV) suggests frequent cross-species transmission of these viruses between bats and other animal species Receptor recognition and proteolytic activation of the membrane fusion machinery are two critical steps during CoV cell entry, determining the host range and tissue tropism of the viruses. 

 CoV receptor engagement is mediated by receptor-binding domain (RBD) in S1 subunit of their spike (S) glycoprotein, while the membrane fusion between viral and host membranes is promoted by the S2 subunit that activated by the host proteolytic cleavage of S protein. CoVs display promiscuous receptor usage and diverse RBD-binding modes.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4), angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), aminopeptidase N (APN), carcinoembryonic-antigen-related cell adhesion molecule 1 (CEACAM1), and transmembrane serine protease 2 (TMPRSS2) are five well-known functional protein receptors for CoVs.The same receptor usage can be shared by CoVs from different subgenera, as exemplified by the ACE2 receptor usage by human CoV NL63 (subgenus Setracovirus) and various SARSr-CoV (subgenus Sarbecovirus) with distinct RBD architechtures. 

 Additionally, CoVs from the same genus, even the same subgenus, may recognize distinct receptors. For instance, unlike SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 using ACE2 as receptor, betacoronaviruses MERS-CoV and MHV recognize receptors DPP4 and CEACAM1, respectively, whereas clade 2 sarbecoviruses were documented to utilize a yet unidentified receptor other than ACE2 for cellular entry.

Yes they are playing the same game as five years ago. We should ban ravel into the US from anyone from China or from a country dealing with them. Perhaps.

 

Air-Borne by Zimmer: A Review

 In February of 2020 I had a meeting with a colleague at a New York Presbyterian facility in Manhattan. I was aware of the COVID virus from the article in NEJM in late January and thus had gloves, a mask, glasses and alcohol. I did this because I took the train in and down to lower Manhattan. I sat in the lobby and it was jammed with patients. I sat next to the door, it was winter and the air flowed in an out as the patients arrived. Upon exiting I met a patient who was Greek and had an issue, Speaking Greek I tried to assist. I warned him of the impending pandemic. His daughter was an infections disease doc in NY. He called her and she affirmed my concern, and he went off to protect himself. It would be less than a month before all hell broke loose. But even then I knew this pathogen was airborne.

 This is a well written and comprehensive work describing the airborne paths of pathogen entry into humans. The authors approach is to present a very readable set of tales of researchers who have worked to demonstrate the airborne mechanism. By airborne, it is more than just a sneeze in front of a target. It is the proliferation of pathogens in the sir over long distances and the process whereby target become infected by this diffuse set of pathogens.

 The author builds the tale of air transmission in a back and forth battle between advocates and opponents. The rather normal process of scientific discovery. The old concept of a miasma, or bad air, had been reinvented to include airborne pathogens. Namely an infected person expels small packets of encapsulated pathogens by a variety of means including just normal breathing. These packets are so small that they “float” for quite a bit rather than just dropping. The packets are not like a canon ball, dropping to the ground in a short distance. But the have a counter force such as that applied by Stokes Law and even more so by the nature of the transport mechanism. They float in a Brownian motion collage, a mixture that moves and remains waiting for its victim. Proving that fact was at the heart of the authors tale.

 What is surprising is that airborne transmission should have been obvious. The phenomenon of Brownian motion, the dust particles seen floating in the air on a sunny day, are clear proof of the phenomenon. Thus the authors excellent discussion of the doubters seems like people who were ignorant of basis physics.

 One should consider the systems involved in disease transmission. Specifically:

 1. The pathogen. Some form of micro-organism. In the case of COVID the pathogen is a corona virus, a single stranded mRNA in a package.

  2. The transmission packaging. The pathogen may be unpackaged or enveloped in some manner

 3. The vector. Namely the means whereby the pathogen gets from its source to the target. This may be via a carriers such as a bat, mosquito, a flea. Namely an entity that facilitates the transport and insertion of the pathogen to the target. Or as this book states the vector may be the air, where a coated pathogen gets released from an infected source and randomly finds 9ts way to a target.

 4. The pathogen insertion mechanism. A mosquito bite or some packaged pathogen attaching itself to some part of the target amenable to systemic entry. In the COVID case the insertion mechanism is via the respiratory system, namely via the mouth, the nose or the eyes.

 5. The pathogen activation mechanism. The pathogen must be able to enter the target cells and become activated. Thus in COVID it is the attachment to the cell surface protein  ACE2 receptor. But in COVID the protein on the virus surface is temperature sensitive and thus may attach early on in the airway at lower temperatures or deeper down at higher temperatures.

 There are a variety of pathogens, a multiplicity of vector methods, and equally a variety of insertion and activation means. HIV is via sexual contact or blood transmission, Rabies by animal bites, tetanus via cuts. But many vector processes are airborne mechanisms.

 It would have been helpful if the author had somehow included this total process, understood    somewhat now, but critical to understanding pathogen transmission and activation.

 The author eventually comes up to the process as applies to COVID.

 Masks have been a major stumbling block of COVID and a key element of understanding airborne transmission. For example:

 1. Most masks are useless. Those skimpy blue paper masks are open on the side and do not prevent an infested person from contaminating the air nor does it protect a well person from inhaling the pathogen. N95 does work if and only if properly work.

 2. Masks are useless with beards! Beards collect a massive amount of pathogens and a mask over one is useless for obvious reasons.

 3. Masks at best protect the nose and mouth. However the eyes are like the sails on a ship. The cornea is coated with water and an oil substance on top of the water to protect drying out. Thus pathogens slam into this oily substance are washed down the tear duct to the respiratory system and then on their way! Thus it is essential that total eye coverage is necessary. Not just a mask.

 The author does go through some of the mask work but there is a great deal missing. Despite this fact frankly the issues are still poorly understood. Recent studies state that the encapsulated Corona virus of COVID is less than 4.5 um in size. Some are less than 0.5 um. But the virion is encapsulated most likely in water molecules if not a mix of proteins. The physics of the particle is complex. But the virus alone is about 20-500 nm in diameter. Thus one may ask how many virions are in a complex bundle? Not to mention what is the structure of that bundle. Finally as we get to nano levels all sorts of electrical phenomenon occur regarding particle adhesion and repulsion. In summary much is unknown about this process.

 Finally the author has a balanced discussion regarding the latest COVID pandemic. It appears that the Government was as expected political and unprepared. The vaccine is not akin to say smallpox or polio. The vaccine is at best kind of like a flu vaccine. It works somewhat for the most part. It does not prevent the infection nor its spread. It may mitigate severe responses at best. In addition the single stranded mRNA virion is subject to multiple mutations which was well known from the start. Knowing airborne transmission may very well have impacted strategies.

 Overall the book is well written. It details many of the issues. Definitely worth a read. Unfortunately there are still a wealth of unanswered questions and there is still too political an environment. The next pandemic may not be far away!