His [Jacques Derrida] logorrhea, which has done him harm, is the more regrettable for coming from someone who has also campaigned as a pedagogue to defend and if possible extend the teaching of philosophy in French schools and universities. (Sturrock 1998, 72)
His logorrhea is regrettable because he has campaigned to defend and extend teaching philosophy in French schools. 37 words reduced to 17. Paring out the redundancy, pure and simple.
Here we have another example of the old lie sold to us, particularly here in the US: there are some activities that are inherently the provence of business and people who think only in terms of profitability. The emphasis is mine.
Particularly, NASA needs reforms on the distribution of funds and budgetary approach for effective governance and operation in this post-cold-war and globalized modern era, in which there is no strategic need for engaging in any type of Apollo-like space-race programs. Although an efficient and functioning NASA is critical to conduct the nation’s space exploration programs successfully, NASA and its space exploration (manned or robotic planetary science) effort can represent only part of the large picture of America’s needed human activities in space. In other words, there is a much broader category of human space activities (referred in this chapter as the VSD, or Space Development category) that cannot be handled or managed effectively or successfully by such a government agency as NASA.
In our view, even with adequate reform in its governance model, NASA is not a rightful institution to lead or manage the nation’s business in Space Development projects. This is because human space development activities, such as development of affordable launch vehicles, RLVs, space-based solar power, space touring capabilities, communication satellites, and trans-earth or trans-lunar space transportation infrastructure systems, are primarily human economic and commercial development endeavors that are not only cost-benefit-sensitive in project management, but are in the nature of business activities and are thus subject to fundamental business principles related to profitability, sustainability, and market development, etc. Whereas, in space exploration, by its nature and definition, there are basic human scientific research and development (R&D) activities that require exploring the unknowns, pushing the envelope of new frontiers or taking higher risks with full government and public support, and these need to be invested in solely by taxpayer contributions. (Hsu and Cox 2009)
But I have to ask a question. Why is profitability the domain only of the business? It is not, if only because profitability is not the end all be all. Profitability is merely a tool to achieve efficiencies. Sometimes it achieves efficiencies in the face of other (more) important goals (many businesses could afford quality health care coverage for all employees and still turn a profit, but instead they focus on maximizing profits and scrimp on the coverage and cherry pick who qualifies).
Another reason it is not solely the domain of profitability is because there are government programs run by people with goals that are not (just) profitability that have also been efficiently run organizations. There is mounting evidence that Medicare delivers health care to people that would be left outside the profitability calculus. The data is also suggesting that it not only delivers goods to people that would be locked out but it does so more efficiently than for profit insurance companies would have.
Speaking of insurance companies as supposedly delivering health care efficiently, take a look at the attached photo. It is of the Mutual of Omaha headquarters. Note the statue of the swimmer in front. Sure the company supports the Olympic swim team, but how was its commission a profit maximizing move?
Hsu, Feng and Ken Cox. (2009). Sustainable space exploration and space development: A unified strategic vision. www.spaceref.com
Sturrock, John. (1998). The word from Paris. London: Verso Books.