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!

March of the Turkeys

 They are back and the males are parading their wares. It must be near mating season.

Tariffs, DOGE and Logic

 

I had a conversation with a friend who worked alongside some folks in the US Forest Service. Apparently the DOGE folks just fired the whole lot. Sounds good, does it not. But wait! These were the folks that negotiated the contracts with the forestry companies for wood for building etc. The result. Simple, no US lumber companies could have access to wood. Then also the US Government no longer received revenue from the lumber leases. The the tariff on Canada drove up lumber prices. Then the supply of lumber dropper dramatically. Then prices went up faster than eggs! Duh! 

This is akin to a "surgeon" who has no idea of anatomy and physiology. A patient is referred with a hear problem. The solution: remove the heart! Problem solved. Also dead patient!

Perhaps the DOGEians need a minimal amount of "anatomy and physiology" training about how the world works. 

And BTW, after two weeks the lumber companies screamed, the Government lost billions in timber leases, so the DOGEians rehired the Forest Service sales force! Not a way to do staff reductions! 

Also note that in 2024 USFS generated $280 M in forest sales. The size of the USFS staff is about 200 people and costs about $20 M. Thus net profit to the Government was $260 M. Just a reminder that facts matter.

How to do a Tariff

 There are two ways to do tariffs.

First, the classic way. Gather a group of "experts". These are academics, economists etc. Then gather tons of data. Do a detailed analysis. Gather a group of better "experts" to review the options. Select a small number. Get the final decision makers together to determine the "best" That takes years.

Second, is to tariff everything at a massive number in a short period, say week. See who screams the most. Then tariff those left shouting the least That takes about a week or two.

Guess what just happened?

And we did not need a single "expert". It also was cheap.

An example is the atomic bomb project. Yes there was a bit of study but the explosion was necessary.

Words Mean Something

 The argument of English being the official language is floating about the NY Times. The most recent one bemoans the fact that someone from Peru had to learn English and they note:

It was a preview of what the next five decades would bring, as the two languages jostled for primacy in my mind. Our moves back and forth between the United States and Peru during my childhood compelled me to latch on to whichever language I needed most at different times, even while striving to retain the other. Sometimes my English was stronger, sometimes my Spanish. No one had to tell me which language mattered when, or whether one or the other was “official.” Wherever I was, I knew. In his March 1 executive order designating English as the official language of the United States, President Trump asserts that a single shared language is “at the core of a unified, cohesive society,” that it serves to “streamline communication,” promote efficiency and “empower new citizens to achieve the American Dream.” On these points, I have little disagreement. Just about every immigrant I’ve ever known in the United States — starting with my father — has sought to learn English for just those reasons. It was relatively easy for my sisters and me to pick it up as kids, and my mother had learned it well from the beloved American nuns who taught her in Peru. But my dad, coming to it later in life, always had to work at it.

 The author misses the point. When the scholars wrote the Pentateuch they took a collection of languages of the Old Testament and organized it, one may wonder how many changes as languages changed over time as well as over geography.

 We know well the battle over the Council of Nicaea using Greek and Latin. One can see English Law change over a millennium,  Words mean something. The Supreme Court issues opinions in English, often parsing English words to render their opinions.

Now if we  say that any language can be used we will admit that words can mean whatever we want them to. We align with the folks in Alice in Wonderland! The argument of no official language admits to open chaos. 

What Language?

 The NY Times has a piece bemoaning the issuance of a dicta that English is the language of the United States. They note:

President Trump’s executive order making English the official language of the United States reached into history to argue its case, noting that the country’s founding documents were written in English. But it turns out, not only in English. After the Constitution was drafted in 1787, supporters of ratification printed translations for Dutch speakers in New York and German speakers in Pennsylvania, so they could understand the arguments for a “vollkommenere Vereinigung” — a more perfect union.

Now I speak somewhat reasonable French, if and only if I am NOT in Paris. Paris you see speaks "perfect" French and they can tell how far away you come from. At a bar once on Rue de l'Opera is was told I was from Mauritania, that was how bad my French was! After 9/11 I spent 10 days in Normandy, no problem at all. By the time I returned via De Gaulle via Montreal my French was acceptable as a non-Parisian.

I also tried to write a contract once in French. What a mistake that was. My choice of French words for English equivalents made no sense!

I often think of early Christianity where the Eastern Christians used Greek the western used Latin. Massive battles occur over translations. Greek does not easily go to Latin nor Latin to Greek! The whole religion was collapsing on a poorly constructed dictionary!

Thus having one language as the standard is essential. Look at the mess in Canada. In Quebec one uses the French version and in Ontario the English. Subtle but material differences. 

Literal translations always have problems. Thus having a standard single language is essential. Even then things get misunderstood. See Supreme Court cases. Many cases are arguments over a word or two.

Thus anyone who has tried to work in two languages knows very well that culture, language, and meaning do not convey!

Why Does Someone Publicly Blow Up a Negotiation?

 I have negotiated hundreds of negotiations over the years. I learned a great deal in the 70s with various negotiations where I was a mere observer. By the 80s I was now negotiating, at Warner and then when I started to do investments with "turn arounds". I always wanted something as did the other side. By the early 2000s I became a "dream merchant" in that I saw what the other side wanted and managed to align my needs with theirs. Always give and take and always non-confrontational.

In the late 90s when dealing with my Eastern European partners I learned to sense their un-sensed concerns. Russian a different negotiators. I had a Ukrainian General, interesting but not as strong as Russians. 

I was at times exposed to the Press and once made a comment that got to my European investors in less than 12 hours, and I was pummeled by saying something that was not well received. Simply I compared Silicon Valley VCs with Zurich banks. It was true but I learned that Zurich banks do not like ever being mentioned, especially in public. I learned, I recovered, and the lesson is never ever speak of your potential partners even making what one thinks of as a truism. 

Now this gets to Zelensky. One wonders why he did what he did. Some thoughts:

1. He is just a bumbling idiot. Possible, but unlikely.

2. He was told that this was the way to deal with the President?  Very possible. He may have been "advised" that to get what he wanted he should have the Press intervene.

3. He did not expect anything from the President but wanted to raise support from Europeans who saw him standing up to the President. Likely, but the idea most likely came from elsewhere. The problem is that the only strong player in Europe is Poland, the rest have old decaying military and crumbling economies. Just look at the UK, France, Germany. 

4. He feared a peace settlement wherein he lost territory and just wants the war to continue with him as head. Possible, but the war is unwinnable. 

We can continue but we should return to the question; why did Putin start this whole thing in the first place? Did Putin want to take over Ukraine, did he have bad intelligence, was there an assumption that the Ukrainian President would fold, that the US would not respond and so forth. Did the CIA have a clue? If so what did the White House do?

 In a sense this seems to have been a combined Intel failure and Executive failure. But what was it really? Still an open question.

Russia, Ukraine, the US

 

I started to learn Russian in the Summer of 1961 when I was a Lifeguard in NYC Beaches. My helper was a Ukrainian immigrant Lifeguard who would help me in pronunciation. Little did I know but my pronunciation and even words would later betray me as Ukrainian taught. But that is a tale for later. In 1961 Russia was our biggest enemy. It would take another year to get to the Cuban Missile Crisis but clearly 1961 was a nuclear threat environment.

 In the late 60s at MIT I took Russian in my foreign language requirement, by then you had a dictionary and all you needed to do was translate a technical paper abstract. I got through.

 In the early 70s I got involved in some [politics in what was then the Coalition for a Democratic Majority, a right wing Democrat organization which later became the Neo Cons. In the process I had the opportunity to work with Professor Richar Pipes, and got educated on Russia, its history, and the current Russian threats.

 By the late 70s I was seconded to the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, ACDA, negotiating the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, CTBT, with the Soviets. I had several meetings with the Russians and even attended receptions in the Soviet Embassy.

 In the early 1990s I went to St Petersburg, just as it was opening up. The old Soviet styles still lingered. We stayed in an Intourist (KGB) hotel and since I had a modest facility in Russian managed to see the city that most westerners missed. I saw ballets for $0.50 whereas the other westerners paid $50.00! My Russia was workable and my attire was not classic western.

 By the mid-1990s I started my international company with a Polish partner and an émigré Russia associate. Off to Moscow. Not as some American executive, but again as a bit of a man in the shadows. No ego, not American attitude. Luckily my wife was a Russophile, Czarist era, and when my Russian partners (most former KGB) took her on a tour of the Kremlin, she could explain all the paintings and history. For a moment people though her as a tour guide and praised her for her English! My Russian partners were impressed.

 Thus for almost ten years I worked with them, 1996 to 2005. We parted friends and I still get annual birthday greetings from Moscow!

 As for Ukraine, I had dealt with many Ukrainians and even went to Lvov to examine the Soviet satellite earth station.

 The current state of Russian and American relations are in my opinion and my experience a result of American overstepping. It started with the American academics telling the Russian how to do business. They did so with no understanding of Russia and its culture. The result was a disaster. Then they expanded NATO, while Russia was just trying to develop a stable economy. The Russian dreadfully fear threats on their borders. Thus as NATO expanded so did the internal fears of Russia. However if one looks at the Baltic States and especially Poland one sees reasonable concerns, thus NATO could be justified but was seen as a threat to Russia. From these two issues; the economy and the border security, came Putin.

 Putin is clearly former KGB. I had run across an East German STASI operative who was his counterpart. She made Putin understandable. Also it was clear that he harbored a dread of the West and a bubbling anger over the collapse of the Soviet Union. Thus the short steel eyed Slav evolved into what we see today.

 Now as to Ukraine. It always had some separate stance especially the Western part. The Ukrainian in the west is akin to Polish whereas in the East is Russian. Just thinks of “thank you”. Thus borders were always somewhat flexible.

 Now come to the current fiasco in the White House. First think of Churchill and Roosevelt. Think Lend Lease. Churchill came hat in hand and understood how to deal with FDR. He was prepped by MI6 as regards to FDRs mannerisms, how to approach him, how to cajole and persuade. Churchill was a quintessential salesman. He got what he needed. In contrast the current Ukrainian President came demanding and complaining and clearly lacked any understanding of the current US President. One suspects he may have been told but his own arrogance could not accept the advice. Churchill dressed appropriately, the Ukrainian did not.

 Understanding the current US President dictates a style of communications which many other foreign leaders have understood. Letters from a King gets one a good trade deal. Hugs from the French assures low tariffs. It does not take much. But scolding anyone in front of the Press gets one the door, permanently.

 The question then for the US is; do we still have productive issues to discuss with Russia? Clearly the current president and the DOGE head are no Nixon and Kissinger, but there can be an argument made. Also we import nothing from Russia, except minerals such as vanadium, critical in our fighter aircraft.

 Thus what can we expect for the next steps? The US wants to try to neutralize the Russia/China/Iran axis. We have no means to deal with Iran. China is a real problem under the current leaders. Russia feels it “just gets no respect”. Thus, the Kissinger strategic mindset needs to become available; one should think strategically and one who can work the ego of the President.

 But the controlling conditions the US must deal with are; (i) Ukraine cannot joint NATO, it would be seen as an existential threat to Moscow, (ii) Ukraine is now a force amalgam of east and west. Perhaps the demands are that the east which is predominantly Russia become such, (iii) the notion of “peacekeepers” is fraught with peril, (iv) the current Ukrainian president seems committed to continuing the battle, it is clearly a no win situation, and how does this get resolved, (v) the US has a limited strategic interest, proxy wars never end well, (vi) the US should engage Russia independent of Ukraine. Fortunately the current Ukrainian president has facilitated many of these. But we still need a Kissinger.

51 Years Later, the FAA is Still Incompetent

 In the summer of 1974 I was asked to take a group of minority students, from Boston, and develop a plan for airport surface traffic control. The group became the MIT MITES program for minority High School students. We had a bright yellow van with equipment and my helpers. The system was to enhance DABS, the Discrete Address Beacon System, and improved version for traffic control.

My first day out to go to Logan Airport, there was this gigantic canary yellow van with Discreet Address Beacon System on the side, NOT Discrete! For a moment I thought I was in the business of solicitation! But off we went for two months of testing and design. I had developed and tested an airport surface contorl system employing transponders and multiple beam antennas. 

We even had software. Unfortunately we were thereat Logan the day a plane slammed into the end of a runway from Portland. All dies, a lesson for how important the work was for students!

But the lesson was that the FAA had options to improve airport traffic then, and now fifty years later they still mess up.The NY Times notes: 

American Airlines Flight 2246, arriving at National Airport from Boston was making its final descent around 8:20 a.m. when it suddenly canceled its landing, climbed toward the skies and accelerated away from the airport. The last-minute move allowed it to avoid colliding with another plane that was ready to take off from the same runway, the Federal Aviation Administration said. The airplane’s pilots were told to scrap the landing by an air traffic controller to “ensure separation was maintained between this aircraft and a preceding departure from the same runway,” the F.A.A. said in a statement. Around 8:50 a.m. Central time, the pilots of Southwest Airlines Flight 2504, traveling from Omaha, canceled the plane’s landing at Chicago Midway after “a business jet entered the runway without authorization,” the F.A.A. said in a statement.

 The FAA lacks systems that would assist ATC. The unauthorized private jet pilot should receive the severest of punishment. But alas all goes by the wayside. As they seem to say today, where is Musk when you need him? We just lost 700 forest rangers! Try the FAA folks. Its technology seems to be in the 19th century.

 

Lonely Turkey

 And then there was one. At one time we had almost two dozen marching. Despite global warming we have had record cold and lots of snow. A climate nightmare for turkeys.

The Idiots who design Apps

 I do not like apps. First is the security issue. Second and most importantly is they try to fit what would take a 3" 4L screen just enough to fit onto you small smart phone. Then they use language which is incomprehensible. 

Apps designers are both arrogant and stupid, a deadly mix The arrogance come when they assume they have designed the best app in the world, and only you the stupid users fails to see that. Second, the stupidity comes when the app just does not work!

Take my latest journey. My Honda keeps popping up demanding a software update. After six months I think I discovered how to do it. Get an app. Nowhere does Honda ever say this. Yet the app fails again and again. Then you read it is a Honda defect.  

This is just the latest example. I truly hate apps. I just use the smart phone for calls and text. No other apps!

Mens et Manus

 Mind and Hands, not it is not sexist just because "men" or "man" are in the Latin word. That is MIT's motto. For a century it was a technical school, science and engineering. Yes some liberal arts stuff like English, some history, and languages. Engineers had to have some facility in German and French, and in my time Russian. Not much, but enough with a dictionary you could translate an abstract to get the gist. 

They they also had a Department on Management of Businesses, and that was related to engineers managing this stuff they produced.

Then came the 90s and new management and left wing ideas. Up sprang the Media Lab, the world of demos never getting any farther, then Philosophy  where there is a Professor of Philosophy and Women’s and Gender Studies at MIT.  She has published in metaphysics, epistemology, feminist theory, and critical race theory.  Broadly speaking, her work links issues of social justice with contemporary work in epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of language, and philosophy of mind.

 Now the NY Times writes:

 I’ve written about Donald Trump’s plan to crush the academic left, but it increasingly looks as though he and his allies are targeting academia more broadly, including the hard sciences that have long enjoyed bipartisan support. “I think the extremely strong desire is to just punish universities however possible,” Kevin Carey, the director of the education policy program at New America, a public policy think tank, told me. “It’s not based on any kind of coherent policy agenda. It’s just a desire to inflict pain.”This is the context for the Trump administration’s attempt, currently being challenged in court, to slash research funding from the National Institutes of Health. The details sound technical and very boring: The new policy would limit reimbursements for schools’ overhead expenses to 15 percent of grants’ value, instead of the 50 to 70 percent that universities often receive now. But if this goes into effect, the damage will be tremendous.

 The writer alleges that Trump wants to destroy Universities. Well in my opinion and in my experience it is already a done deed. If one looks at the size and focus of Philosophy, DEI, Political Science, even Economics and Management, the seeds of destruction are already not only sown but blooming!

No longer is the focus on pure technology or science, it is everything but! The 15% number is just a bell that rings out saying, we will pay for all the research but the cost for the other stuff you get to pay out of your own pocket, that means Alumni donations. I suspect that there will be a revolt there as well.