Having spent time in and out of Britain it is clear what "class" means. The British system is class based and in many ways it exceeds any of the characteristics of the Indian caste system. It starts with heritage, who was your family, then moves to education, profession, accent etc. One can almost place a person by the accent alone. The Brits can then align themselves according to where their culture places them. Mobility in the system is almost impossible, since the long line of ancestors often dominates.
The Brits have looked down upon their captive folks, the Empire residents, from the Irish and Indians to the Jamaicans and others. One just need to read de Tocqueville's text on his Irish visit to see this in action. Now it is thus reasonable that a par venue from Queens, New York, the town's name is the utter irony in this case, would cause such a disruption. Coming from Staten Island, before the bridge, I am a New Yorker, but at a time that we could have easily been considered someone from Nebraska! But Queens, the borough that exploded after WW II and is now more ethnically complex than any place in the world, well that is a stretch!
Now along comes a NY Times piece that tells us all of the Brits. The author notes:
When President Trump visits Britain this
week, many people here will want to remind him — and the rest of the
world — just how nauseating we think he is. He’s new money. He’s
perma-tanned. He’s a former reality TV star. He’s American. He’s
everything the British, snobs that we are, love to hate. And that’s
before we even get started on his ghastly politics.When
it comes to making people feel that they don’t belong, nobody does it
better than us. America may be the most powerful nation on earth, but
Britain is still the snootiest.
This Brit exemplifies what we across the pond who have been exposed to them truly recognize. Now leaving the person targeted aside, they are this way all the time. From the taxi driver to the desk clerk to the museum ticket taker. I had a spare moment once and though I would walk through the museum at Buckingham Palace. resenting my ID the response was negative, a double negative, an Irish name on a US Passport! I was truly beneath contempt! Oh yes, just a reminder, in WW I the US troops had no winter coats so that they got them from the Brits. The Irish from the US then promptly tore off all the buttons which were emblems of the Crown! The coats flapped but we won the War. The author above just reinforces the reason to keep visits to Britain brief!
It will be interesting to see their response. Balloon and all.
Wednesday, July 11, 2018
Tuesday, July 10, 2018
Supreme Court and Net Neutrality
Let me give a simple example. The First Amendment gives all of us a right to free speech where the Government cannot deny us, especially political speech. One could generally agree with that.
Now the Government grants exclusive licenses to say a cable company or a wireless company to provide access. Let's wait there a bit and consider a simpler example.
Let us assume I want to give a speech, to let the people know of some Governmental problem for which I seek a remedy. However to do so I need a soap box to stand on, perhaps I am height impaired. But the Government granted the exclusive monopoly to the soap box manufacturer. He refuses to sell me a soap box or even rent one. My speech cannot be accomplished. Has the Government violated my First Amendment right?
Well according the Kavanaugh, the soap box company has the right and not me! This is Jesuitic logic at its best. The soap box company can deny me access because I would violate their rights. You cannot make this up folks.
Now the Judge states:
The net neutrality rule is unlawful and must be vacated, however, for two alternative and independent reasons. First, Congress did not clearly authorize the FCC to issue the net neutrality rule. Second and in the alternative, the net neutrality rule violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Under the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994), and Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180 (1997), the First Amendment bars the Government from restricting the editorial discretion of Internet service providers, absent a showing that an Internet service provider possesses market power in a relevant geographic market. Here, however, the FCC has not even tried to make a market power showing. Therefore, under the Supreme Court’s precedents applying the First Amendment, the net neutrality rule violates the First Amendment..... In short, although the briefs and commentary about the net neutrality issue are voluminous, the legal analysis is straightforward: If the Supreme Court’s major rules doctrine means what it says, then the net neutrality rule is unlawful because Congress has not clearly authorized the FCC to issue this major rule. And if the Supreme Court’s Turner Broadcasting decisions mean what they say, then the net neutrality rule is unlawful because the rule impermissibly infringes on the Internet service providers’ editorial discretion. To state the obvious, the Supreme Court could always refine or reconsider the major rules doctrine or its decisions in the Turner Broadcasting cases. But as a lower court, we do not possess that power. Our job is to apply Supreme Court precedent as it stands. For those two alternative and independent reasons, the FCC’s net neutrality regulation is unlawful and must be vacated. I respectfully disagree with the panel majority’s contrary decision and, given the exceptional importance of the issue, respectfully dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc.
Now there are these two points. First, Chevron gives the Administrative agencies broad discretion in implementing the law. Kavanaugh seems to see it as quite narrow with ongoing Congressional authorization for every period and comma and colon. Second, the soap box issue is critical. They the ISPs are for the most part monopolies or at least oligopolies. They control free speech, they delimit free speech. The opinion above is in my opinion without merit. I have previously considered this in detail in a non-Jesuitic manner. My rather Ockhamistic approach uses logic and grammar as clear textual interpretation. The above is in my opinion a clear delimitation of free speech, and is in my opinion a clear breach of the First Amendment.
But it seems the soap box manufacturer's monopolistic lobby has won, for now!
Now the Government grants exclusive licenses to say a cable company or a wireless company to provide access. Let's wait there a bit and consider a simpler example.
Let us assume I want to give a speech, to let the people know of some Governmental problem for which I seek a remedy. However to do so I need a soap box to stand on, perhaps I am height impaired. But the Government granted the exclusive monopoly to the soap box manufacturer. He refuses to sell me a soap box or even rent one. My speech cannot be accomplished. Has the Government violated my First Amendment right?
Well according the Kavanaugh, the soap box company has the right and not me! This is Jesuitic logic at its best. The soap box company can deny me access because I would violate their rights. You cannot make this up folks.
Now the Judge states:
The net neutrality rule is unlawful and must be vacated, however, for two alternative and independent reasons. First, Congress did not clearly authorize the FCC to issue the net neutrality rule. Second and in the alternative, the net neutrality rule violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Under the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994), and Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180 (1997), the First Amendment bars the Government from restricting the editorial discretion of Internet service providers, absent a showing that an Internet service provider possesses market power in a relevant geographic market. Here, however, the FCC has not even tried to make a market power showing. Therefore, under the Supreme Court’s precedents applying the First Amendment, the net neutrality rule violates the First Amendment..... In short, although the briefs and commentary about the net neutrality issue are voluminous, the legal analysis is straightforward: If the Supreme Court’s major rules doctrine means what it says, then the net neutrality rule is unlawful because Congress has not clearly authorized the FCC to issue this major rule. And if the Supreme Court’s Turner Broadcasting decisions mean what they say, then the net neutrality rule is unlawful because the rule impermissibly infringes on the Internet service providers’ editorial discretion. To state the obvious, the Supreme Court could always refine or reconsider the major rules doctrine or its decisions in the Turner Broadcasting cases. But as a lower court, we do not possess that power. Our job is to apply Supreme Court precedent as it stands. For those two alternative and independent reasons, the FCC’s net neutrality regulation is unlawful and must be vacated. I respectfully disagree with the panel majority’s contrary decision and, given the exceptional importance of the issue, respectfully dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc.
Now there are these two points. First, Chevron gives the Administrative agencies broad discretion in implementing the law. Kavanaugh seems to see it as quite narrow with ongoing Congressional authorization for every period and comma and colon. Second, the soap box issue is critical. They the ISPs are for the most part monopolies or at least oligopolies. They control free speech, they delimit free speech. The opinion above is in my opinion without merit. I have previously considered this in detail in a non-Jesuitic manner. My rather Ockhamistic approach uses logic and grammar as clear textual interpretation. The above is in my opinion a clear delimitation of free speech, and is in my opinion a clear breach of the First Amendment.
But it seems the soap box manufacturer's monopolistic lobby has won, for now!
Monday, July 9, 2018
Interesting Drug Prices
In a recent piece in Becker's Hospital Review they list the cities with the highest and lowest drug prices.
They note:
10 most expensive cities for medications
1. New York City — 20.10 percent above national average
2. San Francisco — 12.60 percent
3. Los Angeles — 9.80 percent
4. Philadelphia — 7.90 percent
5. San Diego — 6.40 percent
6. Raleigh, N.C. — 4.30 percent
7. Birmingham, Ala. — 3.90 percent
8. Orlando — 2.80 percent
9. Cleveland — 2.50 percent
10. Sacramento, Calif. — 2.20 percent
10 least expensive cities for medications
1. Columbus, Ohio — 21.70 percent below national average
2. Atlanta — 18.60 percent
3. Houston — 17.40 percent
4. Dallas — 16.90 percent
5. Denver — 16.30 percent
6. Salt Lake City — 11.00 percent
7. Indianapolis — 10.60 percent
8. Washington, D.C. — 10.60 percent
9. Las Vegas — 9.40 percent
10. Tampa, Fla. — 7.30 percent
That looks like a 42% swing! I know New York is expensive, in Manhattan, but all over the city?
They note:
10 most expensive cities for medications
1. New York City — 20.10 percent above national average
2. San Francisco — 12.60 percent
3. Los Angeles — 9.80 percent
4. Philadelphia — 7.90 percent
5. San Diego — 6.40 percent
6. Raleigh, N.C. — 4.30 percent
7. Birmingham, Ala. — 3.90 percent
8. Orlando — 2.80 percent
9. Cleveland — 2.50 percent
10. Sacramento, Calif. — 2.20 percent
10 least expensive cities for medications
1. Columbus, Ohio — 21.70 percent below national average
2. Atlanta — 18.60 percent
3. Houston — 17.40 percent
4. Dallas — 16.90 percent
5. Denver — 16.30 percent
6. Salt Lake City — 11.00 percent
7. Indianapolis — 10.60 percent
8. Washington, D.C. — 10.60 percent
9. Las Vegas — 9.40 percent
10. Tampa, Fla. — 7.30 percent
That looks like a 42% swing! I know New York is expensive, in Manhattan, but all over the city?
Wednesday, July 4, 2018
Propaganda in Today's World
Edward Bernays wrote a book called Propaganda in 1928.
Bernays was a part of the Wilson Propaganda machine in WW I called the US Committee
on Public Information, CPI, the original "fake news" outlet of the
US. An entity funded by taxpayer dollars and ultimately directed by and for
Wilson.
Bernays notes:
Modern propaganda is a consistent, enduring effort to create
or shape events to influence the relations of the public to an enterprise, idea
or group. This practice of creating circumstances and of creating pictures in
the minds of millions of persons is very common.
Virtually no important undertaking is now carried on
without it, whether the enterprise be building a cathedral, endowing a
university, marketing a moving picture, floating a large bond issue, or
electing a president. Sometimes the effect on the public is created by a
professional propagandist, sometimes by an amateur deputed for the job.
The important thing is that it is universal and continuous;
and in its sum total it is regimenting the public mind every bit as much as an
army regiments the bodies of its soldiers. So vast are the numbers of minds
which can be regimented, and so tenacious are they when regimented, that a
group at times offers an irresistible pressure before which legislators,
editors, and teachers are helpless.
The group will cling to its stereotypes, as Walter
Lippmann calls it, making of those supposedly powerful beings, the leaders of
public opinion, mere bits of driftwood in the surf. When an Imperial Wizard,
sensing what is perhaps hunger for an ideal, offers a picture of a nation all
Nordic and nationalistic, the common man of the older American stock, feeling
himself elbowed out of his rightful position and prosperity by the newer
immigrant stocks, grasps the picture which fits in so neatly with his
prejudices, and makes it his own.
He buys the sheet and pillowcase costume, and bands with
his fellows by the thousand into a huge group powerful enough to swing state
elections and to throw a ponderous monkey wrench into a national convention. In
our present social organization approval of the public is essential to any
large undertaking. Hence a laudable movement may be lost unless it impresses
itself on the public mind. Charity, as well as business, and politics and literature,
for that matter, have had to adopt propaganda, for the public must be
regimented into giving money just as it must be regimented into tuberculosis
prophylaxis.
The Near East Relief, the Association for the Improvement
of the Condition of the Poor of New York, and all the rest, have to work on
public opinion just as though they had tubes of toothpaste to sell. We are
proud of our diminishing infant death rate—and that too is the work of
propaganda. Propaganda does exist on all sides of us, and it does change our
mental pictures of the world. Even if this be unduly pessimistic—and that
remains to be proved—the opinion reflects a tendency that is undoubtedly real. …
Bernays then continues to note Propaganda more closely in
Politics. He states:
The great political problem in our modern democracy is
how to induce our leaders to lead. The dogma that the voice of the people is
the voice of God tends to make elected persons the will-less servants of their
constituents. This is undoubtedly part cause of the political sterility of
which certain American critics constantly complain.
No serious sociologist any longer believes that the voice
of the people expresses any divine or specially wise and lofty idea. The voice
of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is made up for it
by the group leaders in whom it believes and by those persons who understand
the manipulation of public opinion. It is composed of inherited prejudices and
symbols and cliches and verbal formulas supplied to them by the leaders.
Fortunately, the sincere and gifted politician is able,
by the instrument of propaganda, to mold and form the will of the people. Disraeli
cynically expressed the dilemma, when he said: “I must follow the people. Am I
not their leader?” He might have added: “I must lead the people. Am I not their
servant?” Unfortunately, the methods of our contemporary politicians, in
dealing with the public, are as archaic and ineffective as the advertising
methods of business in 1900 would be today. While politics was the first important
department of American life to use propaganda on a large scale, it has been the
slowest in modifying its propaganda methods to meet the changed conditions of
the public mind. American business first learned from politics the methods of
appealing to the broad public.
But it continually improved those methods in the course
of its competitive struggle, while politics clung to the old formulas. The
political apathy of the average voter, of which we hear so much, is undoubtedly
due to the fact that the politician does not know how to meet the conditions of
the public mind. He cannot dramatize himself and his platform in terms which
have real meaning to the public. Acting on the fallacy that the leader must
slavishly follow, he deprives his campaign of all dramatic interest. An
automaton cannot arouse the public interest. A leader, a fighter, a dictator,
can. But, given our present political conditions under which every office
seeker must cater to the vote of the masses, the only means by which the born
leader can lead is the expert use of propaganda. Whether in the problem of
getting elected to office or in the problem of interpreting and popularizing
new issues, or in the problem of making the day-to-day administration of public
affairs a vital part of the community life, the use of propaganda, carefully
adjusted to the mentality of the masses, is an essential adjunct of political
life. The successful businessman today apes the politician. He has adopted the
glitter and the ballyhoo of the campaign. He has set up all the sideshows.
He has annual dinners that are a compendium of speeches,
flags, bombast, stateliness, pseudo-democracy slightly tinged with paternalism.
On occasion he doles out honors to employees, much as the republic of classic
times rewarded its worthy citizens. But these are merely the sideshows, the
drums, of big business, by which it builds up an image of public service, and
of honorary service.
This is but one of the methods by which business
stimulates loyal enthusiasms on the part of directors, the workers, the
stockholders and the consumer public. It is one of the methods by which big
business performs its function of making and selling products to the public.
The real work and campaign of business consists of intensive study of the
public, the manufacture of products based on this study, and exhaustive use of
every means of reaching the public. Political campaigns today are all
sideshows, all honors, all bombast, glitter, and speeches. These are for the
most part unrelated to the main business of studying the public scientifically,
of supplying the public with party, candidate, platform, and performance, and
selling the public these ideas and products. Politics was the first big
business in America. Therefore there is a good deal of irony in the fact that
business has learned everything that politics has to teach, but that politics
has failed to learn very much from business methods of mass distribution of
ideas and products.
Now we can examine how this is being tried in New Jersey. The
Hill notes[1]:
New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (D) is approving a bill that
dedicates $5 million to strengthen local media outlets in the state. The state
legislature passed the "Civic Info Bill" late last month, …. The bill
created the Civic Information Consortium — a unique nonprofit developed with
five universities — to promote the spread of news and information throughout
the state. The bill was conceived by the Free Press Action Fund, an advocacy
group on media issues.
The effort is led by The College of New Jersey, Montclair
State University, the New Jersey Institute of Technology, Rowan University and
Rutgers University. The consortium will share the $5 million with local news organizations,
emphasizing "underserved communities, low-income communities and
communities of color," the Free Press Action Fund said. The money was
included in the fiscal 2019 budget, which Murphy signed into law on Sunday. He
is expected to formally sign the legislation creating the consortium soon.
One must ask:
1. Given the exploding tax burden on New Jersey residents,
why this now?
2. As with any Government program it is a camel's nose in
the tent. It is $5 million now and $500 million soon!
3. Having Universities "control" the money means
that in New Jersey, politically hand picked "academic" often with allegiance
to the powers that be get to create and support Propaganda! Remember Bernays.
4. The idea was conceived it is stated by what in my opinion,
based on my experience, is a far left wing organization in DC. Why did they do
this and for whose benefit.
Frankly in my opinion this makes the Wilson era CPI look
like a kindergarten exercise.
Tuesday, July 3, 2018
Exosomes Again
Exosomes are those small sets of material ejected from cells. Cancer cells like all other cells eject these exosomes. A recent paper presents an interesting result; namely that exosomes may excite normal cells to become malignant. This is effectively an infectious scenario for cancer.
In the paper by Stefanius et al they note:
Cancer evolves through a multistep process that occurs by the temporal accumulation of genetic mutations mediated by intracellular and extracellular cues. We observe that exosomes isolated from pancreatic cancer cells, but not normal pancreatic cells, can initiate the first step of malignant cell transformation. Injection of exosome-initiated transformed cells into mice results in aggressive tumor growth. Using proteomic profiling and DNA sequencing of exosome-treated and transformed cells, we show that cancer cell exosomes act as a classic initiator by causing random genetic changes in recipient cells. Our studies provide new insight into a function of cancer cell exosomes and how they might specifically contribute to orchestrated local cell transformation.
This is an interesting result and worth following.
In the paper by Stefanius et al they note:
Cancer evolves through a multistep process that occurs by the temporal accumulation of genetic mutations mediated by intracellular and extracellular cues. We observe that exosomes isolated from pancreatic cancer cells, but not normal pancreatic cells, can initiate the first step of malignant cell transformation. Injection of exosome-initiated transformed cells into mice results in aggressive tumor growth. Using proteomic profiling and DNA sequencing of exosome-treated and transformed cells, we show that cancer cell exosomes act as a classic initiator by causing random genetic changes in recipient cells. Our studies provide new insight into a function of cancer cell exosomes and how they might specifically contribute to orchestrated local cell transformation.
This is an interesting result and worth following.
Politics and Aristotle
Aristotle wrote his work on Politics almost 2500 years ago and it still resonates today. I would suggest that one perhaps take some time and read a bit over the summer breaks. Try to leave behind the vitriol of current life and contemplate on what Aristotle observed then.
I use Copleston (History of Philosophy, V I Part II) to lay forth the ideas. I first read this in detail in the Fall of 1962 just after the Cuban Missie debacle. From Copleston we have a powerful discussion of revolution, against a Constitutional government:
Worth a read.
I use Copleston (History of Philosophy, V I Part II) to lay forth the ideas. I first read this in detail in the Fall of 1962 just after the Cuban Missie debacle. From Copleston we have a powerful discussion of revolution, against a Constitutional government:
Aristotle treats acutely of the various kinds and degrees
of revolution which tend to occur under different Constitutions, of their
causes and the means of preventing them; and, owing to his great historical
knowledge, he was able to give apt historical illustrations of the points he
wished to make. He points out, for instance, that the revolutionary state of
mind is largely brought about by one-sided notions of justice—democrats
thinking that men who are equally free should be equal in everything, oligarchs
thinking that because men are unequal in wealth they should be unequal in
everything. He emphasizes the fact that rulers should have no opportunity of
making money for themselves out of the offices they hold, and stresses the
requisites for high office in the State, namely, loyalty to the Constitution,
capacity for administrative work and integrity of character. Whatever be the
type of Constitution, it must be careful not to go to extremes; for if either
democracy or oligarchy is pushed to extremes the ensuing rise of malcontent
parties will be sure to lead in the end to revolution.
Extremes are always a danger and even today we see that occurring. Beware the words of Aristotle.
In Books Seven and Eight of the Politics Aristotle
discusses his positive views of what a State should be. (i) The State must be large enough to be self-sufficing
(of course Aristotle's notion of what a self-sufficing community actually is
would be altogether inadequate for modem times), but not so large that order
and good government are rendered impracticable. In other words, it must be
large enough to fulfil the end of the State and not so large that it can no
longer do so. The number of citizens requisite for this purpose cannot of
course be arithmetically determined a priori. (ii) Similarly with the territorial extent of the State.
This should not be so small that a leisured life is impossible (i.e. that
culture is impracticable) nor yet so large that luxury is encouraged. The city
should not aim at mere wealth, but at importing her needs and exporting her
surplus. (iii) Citizens. Agricultural labourers and artisans are
necessary, but they will not enjoy citizen rights. Only the third class, that
of the warriors, will be citizens in the full sense. These will be warriors in
youth, rulers or magistrates in middle-age and priests in old age. Each citizen
will possess a plot of land near the city and another near the frontier (so
that all may have an interest in the defence of the State). This land will be
worked by the non-citizen labourers
The above is again prescient. Who is a citizen and borders, and of course limits. Moreover, who is not a citizen.
Aristotle treats acutely of the various kinds and degrees
of revolution which tend to occur under different Constitutions, of their
causes and the means of preventing them; and, owing to his great historical
knowledge, he was able to give apt historical illustrations of the points he
wished to make. He points out, for instance, that the revolutionary state of
mind is largely brought about by one-sided notions of justice—democrats
thinking that men who are equally free should be equal in everything, oligarchs
thinking that because men are unequal in wealth they should be unequal in
everything. He emphasizes the fact that rulers should have no opportunity of
making money for themselves out of the offices they hold, and stresses the
requisites for high office in the State, namely, loyalty to the Constitution,
capacity for administrative work and integrity of character. Whatever be the
type of Constitution, it must be careful not to go to extremes; for if either
democracy or oligarchy is pushed to extremes the ensuing rise of malcontent
parties will be sure to lead in the end to revolution.
Aristotle had a point here. Do we choose our leaders this way? All too often we see excess self aggrandizement. Finally:
The only real guarantee of the stability and prosperity
of the State is the moral goodness and integrity of the citizens, while
conversely, unless the State is good and the system of its education is
rational, moral and healthy, the citizens will not become good. The individual
attains his proper development and perfection through his concrete life, which
is a life in Society, i.e. in the State, while Society attains its proper end through
the perfection of its members. That Aristotle did not consider the State to be
a great Leviathan beyond good and evil is clear from the criticism he passes on
the Lacedaemonians. It is a great mistake, he says, to suppose that war and
domination are the be-all and end-all of the State. The State exists for the
good life, and it is subject to the same code of morality as the individual. As
he puts it, “the same things are best for individuals and states.” Reason and
history both show that the legislator should direct all his military and other
measures to the establishment of peace. Military States are safe only in
wartime: once they have acquired their empire, they rust away like iron and
fall. Both Plato and Aristotle, in their preoccupation with the fostering of a
truly cultural political life, set their faces against imperialist dreams of
military aggrandizement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
