Pattern, Contexts and the Semblance of Language Games. . .

"History informs you of patterns that will repeat in a different context."

Venkk Sastry (On Facebook)

February 10 at 9:21am · San Francisco, CA · 

The above was originally posted on Facebook. I found it there one morning on my train ride into the city. For better or worse I sit on the train reading such things. This was one of the more interesting posts. No doubt inspired by the thought of history repeating itself. The above is a variation on that theme. As I write this now Nietzsche's eternal recurrence comes to mind. 

That, however, is not what caught my attention. No, I was more inspired by another German, well Austrian, but we will come back to that. For now I return to the quote itself. Specifically, to the reference to patterns and contexts. In history we are informed of patterns. These patterns we are told repeat, and they repeat in various contexts. 

This thought haunts me routinely in various situations and contexts. Which is amusing now that I think of it, as I am critical, of that very proposition. Yes we perceive patterns in various domains, not just in history but in science, business, mathematics and beyond, but what is involved here? Are those patterns as obvious as they appear?

On Facebook, the example that Venkk offered to me in response to my query was that a teacher using a chalkboard to teach students, and a teacher using computers to teach the students, are engaged in the same activity, teaching. The teachers and students in each are engaged in an educational endeavor. I disagree. Though both are involving educational endeavors at some level, they are far from identical. 

Just staying with this example for a moment, I would argue that teaching with a set of tablets or computers versus a chalkboard are two very different methods, requiring different approaches to class room management, lesson prep, and likewise. In the classroom, teachers will look for those not only drifting away looking out the window, but those who are wandering on the PC or tablet.

If you are the school administrator, you are pondering what does a teacher require in their classrooms. In this tale, we have two very different set of requirements. In the one with a chalkboard you can have a chalkboard, and typically neat rows of desks in front of it. 

With the computers, you require not only the machines, or hardware, but larger desks or tables. you will need software. Likewise there are power requirements - do you have twenty plugs or electrical outlets for the PCs? do you have surge protection? Of course tablets are different again and will again require different requirements, including charging stations, perhaps some type of cases to protect them. Perhaps wifi is needed, and the list goes on. 

Likewise, what is required before you can teach these lessons to these students. If we are today teaching fractions, all must have their numbers and some basic addition, subtraction, etc. 

For the students using PCs or tablets, however, they must be computer literate. They must be able to navigate such a system. For those looking up to the front of the room and listening aa the teacher tries to introduce fractions, the challenge is to stay awake. In both classrooms, student engagement is important but different, For those with PCs or tablets, the focus is on the software with the teacher making the rounds making sure that all are working through the lesson, and I imagine making sure the software has loaded properly and the machines are functioning. The teacher here becomes in part a Desktop Support professional.   

The social dynamic is different in the two classes. Again, for the teacher up front, writing on the board, talking; they are trying to engage the class. On occasion he or she might call on a student or retrieve the attention of one who is gazing out that window. In general, though, he or she speaks to the class. The teacher in the class with the PCs or tablets is walking around from desk to desk, checking each student's progress. Perhaps, the teacher has them in groups and then must start the class by setting up the groups and its procedures. One student will be responsible for the computers and the others will do what?

Lastly, what is learned? Here we have talked of fractions. And yes both groups focused on fractions. Will those who have learned on the PC be able to apply that to the world beyond the PC? Will those who learned on the chalkboard be able to apply such on the PC? 

This seems a simple question yet, behaviorally the one group learned sitting behind a desk looking up at the teacher as she scribbled on the board. The students learning with the PC or tablet would have to be engaged with the screen or monitor, and manipulating that screen, or mouse and keyboard. Two very different sets of behavioral and cognitive tasks, likewise I would imagine neural processes. And then if the one is in groups versus the rows of desks, we again change the dynamics. All of these effect how and what is learned.  

So let us assume that both classes learned their fractions. Cognitively, behaviorally, socially, and I would have to imagine neurologically, however, very different dynamics were involved in each class. The physical requirements of each class differed, For someone involved in education theory, they could probably further slice this tale into various approaches to education. The point is that to see a pattern in multiple contexts is rarely sufficient. 

There must be a correspondence between not only pattern, but also context. Rarely, however, will you have both identical pattern and context. On that rare occasion where that does occur, I imagine the response to one's discovery of such is something like, "No kidding." or "Big surprise." So to offer something interesting, there must be differences between the contexts. In fact, the variation and differences in context allow for the pattern to stand out and be recognized. 

We will continue this and at some point will get to my Austrian too. Promise. 

Schools, Universities, Education, and Learning or Why I hate Back-to-School Nights

I use to hate "Back to School nights". Thank God my son is done with all of that! I am sure no one really enjoys them - those occasions where you return to grammar, middle and high school classrooms to hear what your child or children will be learning in the school year that has just begun. My frustration, however, was not with the tedium of the event, not with the fact that I was coming from work and tired, nor that these events really provided limited insight into what my son was actually learning. For me they just would overwhelm me. I would leave the school actually feeling depressed, even angry.

Over the years I have not really spent a lot of time examining why that was. I was usually just thankful that it was over, and that I was done for another year. Schools, I quickly concluded, were simply not for me. Which is is interesting in that I love universities. For roughly ten years I lingered in proximity to Rutgers and enjoyed pursuing at first a Bachelors in Philosophy and then for another period of time working towards a Masters in Social Studies Education. That is right, I was for several years there at night attending the Rutgers Graduate School of Education pursuing a Masters in Social Studies.

As I write this I realize that this last detail might be a part of the dynamic. You think?

So in some respects, those days at Rutgers Graduate School of Education were the best and the worst of times. I was during the day working at Prudential doing a customer service function. And then at nights I would run to class. I enjoyed the hustle of it, and the classes were a mix of things. Some required, others not. I was exposed to a range of areas from Education Research to Political Science Methodology, which was actually courtesy of the Rutgers Political Science Department. I was of course given a smattering of topics within Social Studies from the bizarre funding of New Jersey schools to the development of actual social studies lessons. Most intriguing to me was my introduction to the philosophy of Pragmatism courtesy of Professors Giarelli and "JJ" Chambliss.

So I did enjoy much of this, but the end product, what the Graduate School of Education is focused on, the school - I have come to have little use for. A case of the operation was largely a success, but the patient died. I was a few credits away from a degree when I decided to abandon the project. Despite the time I had spent in classes, the thought and study I had put into it. the student loans I had taken out, the student teaching I had done, I left and jumped into IT staffing, basically the sale of IT services and staffing solutions. So it is no wonder that I feel a  sense of desperation and regret when entering into a school. I made a commitment to this vocation, but ultimately walked away.

The question remains why? And to answer that I will leave you with two stories.

The first takes place in Spotswood High School, where I did my student teaching. I basically survived that experience. There were moments I was proud of, and there were moments that were problems. My classroom management style left something to be desired. My luck of being given free rein in a History of Psychology class still puts a smile on my face. My poor attempt at contrasting the Progressive Movement circa 1900 to Manifest Destiny prior to 1860 in an AP History class is another moment that haunts me. The American History class, which was mandatory. . . I do not know what to say.

The most amusing moment was right at the tail-end of my assignment. It was perhaps the last afternoon of my last day, right before the holidays. We perhaps had had a holiday party of sorts, One student had given me a tie, another a coffee mug. So some connection had been made? The kids were now gone - school was done for the day. The Assistant Principal comes in to shake hands and wishes me well. I am wrapping things up and he says,"Yeah, you might consider another vocation." This is during the course of a conversation touching on well wishes, the last few weeks, the kids, the holidays. Nothing too serious. Nor does he elaborate.

The second story is even further back. 1978 I guess. Yeah I know we are talking prehistory. I am assigned a seat in a Mr Stryker's Biology class. With that I happen to share a desk, a double desk with two seats, with a kid by the name of John Kolba. Perhaps the luckiest break I got. I did not really relish sitting next to this dude. I did not know him, He was not thrilled either. Stryker had separated him and his buddy. He was pretty long-haired even then, and I really had little use for such at that point.

I myself, however, had just started checking out music. Led Zeppelin II was my first album and that was in the fall of 1978. We did get to know each other and talk about such. I was quite impressed with his solution to the "bug collection" project. Unlike the rest of us, he worked out a deal with Mr Stryker to draw 20 or so insects in detail. From the little I saw, I was impressed. So we did kind of get to know each other. He proceeded to introduce bands such as Rush and Thin Lizzy to me and a friendship developed.

Jump ahead to 1981. I believe it was either in the spring or we had just graduated. Me and my buddy are heading on a Sunday night to the Warford House, a dive bar located in the little nearby town of Frenchtown. It is not far from Easton PA on the Delaware River. The Warford House was commonly referred to as the "Lower" back then. I am fairly certain it was in the spring of 81, as I recall it being a school night, literally. Spellbinder was playing there. Spellbinder is John Kolba's band, playing a mix of covers ranging from Tom Petty to ZZ Top to Thin Lizzy. And it was just cool going into a bar to see these kids perform. We were all 16, 17 maybe some were 18 at that time, and the drinking age though lower back then was not that low.

It was the exposure to bands such as Thin Lizzy and Rush, the exposure to the likes of a live band and the Warford House that was the beginnings of an education, and of a friendship. It was in these environs that I learned something. Interestingly, the things I learned, the things I valued, might have been acquired in schools and universities. They were not, however, listed typically in the formal curriculum. They were not the stated goals of these institutions, and it is that, which gives me pause each time I return.

“The Most Vulnerable” versus “The Able Bodied”

House Speaker Ryan offered up on Friday a Healthcare Policy Brief. For my money it boils down to several key points:

• Medicaid is for those who are the “most vulnerable patients“ versus the “able-bodied adults”, who will have to find coverage elsewhere. Further Medicaid will be largely controlled by the states. The state governments will be able to control how they spend these dollars. Lastly, states will get limited funds from the federal government for Medicaid, and the big question here is how much? I think we know one thing it will be less, perhaps far less than we see today.
• So Medicaid shrinks and the private market grows. To help contain the cost of insurance he offers several items.
  • Health Savings Accounts – This is wonderful if you have money for Health Savings accounts. Also if you have an actual health issue you could burn through such an account pretty damn quick, at least with today's healthcare regimes and costs.
  • A market solution to the the lack of healthcare insurance products - the breaking down of “barriers that restrict choice and prevent Americans from picking the plan that is best for them and their family”. This is basically allowing insurance to be available across state lines. State lines are the barriers he refers to. It ultimately takes away the States rights to regulate the insurance products available in the states. My reading of this idea is that it is an assault on Federalism.
  • A tax credit, which all adults will seem to be given, regardless of whether you pay into the federal coffers or not. The question here is how much of a tax credit? What will this actually amount to?

These are the solutions he is offering. These are the solutions that he has been offering for the past five or six years now. He is promising that the “most vulnerable patients“ will continue to have some type of Medicaid product. Those who are “able-bodied adults” will go to the market place and get coverage. Further, the federal government will give all “able-bodied adults” a check to take to that marketplace. Lastly, the federal government will strip the states of their right to regulate insurance within their borders, with the intent of stimulating market choice. 

My criticism of these is that I expect little in regard to tax credits and poor quality insurance plans for those at the lower end of the income scale and market. Regarding Health Savings Accounts, I see little use for them as you will burn through them very quickly if you have an actual health care problem. And you can only burn through those funds, if you have those funds to set aside in the first place. In short, the upper-middle class get little or nothing. Those at the bottom get some kind of care, which is largely contingent upon where you live. Those who are “able-bodied adults” who are simply poor, you might have some type of coverage, maybe, but it will not cover much.

If after five years of talking, thinking and discussing these matters this is the best that the Republican leadership can offer, we are in trouble.

OBAMACARE REPEAL AND REPLACE - Policy Brief

Honesty - A Simple but also Necessary Term

I had a discussion a few nights ago. again on Facebook, that did leave me with a range of thoughts. Almost too many. It had started with a discussion of Madonna. This was after her appearance at the Washington DC protest on Saturday, January 21st.

The poster was critical of her, claiming that regardless of her stated intentions, she is primarily focused on selling her brand, her music and anything else she can sell. Ultimately it was said, she is in this game for herself, she is truly not interested in anyone else. I do not know if this is true. I do not really care. Madonna probably does not know. 

In response to that, however, myself and one other asserted that this is true of most politicians. It is true of the President himself I claimed. And this, the original poster challenged. He came back, stating,"No Way, He was always upfront about his purpose. Never hid behind a cause and monetized peoples feelings and ideology! He was in it for the Money!"

To which I stated that he was honest. Specifically, I said,"OK so what you are saying is that he does not take positions contrary to what he actually believes. He is an honest man." I do not actually believe this, but it was an amusing position. And if not honesty, there is at the least a consistency there. 

Interestingly, the original poster would not concede that the President was honest, just that he was not manipulative, as was Madonna. And we went back and forth on this. He was unwilling to say that the President was honest, based on the points made above. He went on to say that to be or even say that the President is honest was complicated. To which I responded, how so? Perhaps it is at hard to be honest, but it is not complicated. 

So the other poster, who could not bring himself to say that the President was honest, and who claimed only that honesty is complicated, had to leave, and I went to bed. The conversation ended there. I got up, however, the next morning, and on the train into New York, I sat there thinking of the value of honesty, of the necessity of honesty.  

When I say honesty, I am bringing with that term several others, no doubt. Truth, of course, needs to be included along with honesty. Trust goes hand in hand with these. Lastly, perhaps, as I pointed out above consistency. Philosophers have a range of theories on truth and with that honesty, but at the end of the day the value of it and these virtues in general are undisputed.

I sat there at the end of my train ride frantically sending a series of one-line emails to myself. Soon enough I would be in the tunnel and did not want to lose my gems. Each represented a case where honesty and truth were essential in some fashion.

Below is the list I thought of and emailed to myself that early morning on my train:

1. Honesty and trust are necessary for a civil society
2. Honesty and the principle of charity
3. honesty and sophistry
4. Capitalism itself is based on trust though it is a tenuous relationship!
5. Economic nationalism - can it stand considering the need for honesty and truth.
6. And lastly the tension between the President and Madonna clings to honesty. (The fact that they are not seen as the same is perhaps why they protested. The very core of the issue.

So I will try to go through these and make some sense of the ramblings.:

1. Honesty and trust are necessary to have a civil society 

This is almost a bromide. It is simply the case that if all were dishonest and untruthful, than there would it would be impossible to trust. What would you trust? Perhaps you would come to expect to be lied to. Political institutions would be untenable. If two people could not agree on what belongs to who, or what is shared, than how could a group of people arrive at any type of agreement and proceed in any shared task.

2. Honesty and the Principle of Charity 

This topic has and continues to be a pet project of mine for awhile!

I believe Augustine was the original author of the idea, certainly in the Christian tradition. For him charity was to see God in others. In this way, one recognizes the other, someone or something that otherwise would be foreign and unknown. It allows you to embrace someone that is foreign or non-Christian, as opposed to challenge or confront them. With Augustine you see others with love, versus fear or contempt. The other becomes, like yourself, one of God's children.

Jump ahead to the mid to late 20th century where you have philosophers looking not to god but to language to understand our world. In this case, Donald Davidson. Davidson was an American philosopher who falls in what is commonly described as analytic philosophy. Again this group is very focused on the nature of language and the belief that to understand language and how it works is to arrive at some philosophical gold.

Davidson and others were intrigued with what was known as Radical Interpretation. Basically the question of how exactly does an anthropologist make sense of a totally foreign culture. He made sense of this exercise through the Principle of charity. Now unlike Augustine who turned to God to interpret and make sense of unknowns, Davidson looks to Truth. For him, language, meaning and belief are intimate. The language people use, the meanings conveyed in that language, and the beliefs the speakers hold are almost if not identical. the anthropologist then interprets the person from the other culture through his own set of beliefs, which he largely holds to be true.

In short, we arrive at language and belief entailing a large set of true statements. When we engage in any type of communication it is in relation to that set of statements (beliefs, facts, etc.) that we determine whether the speaker makes sense and likewise if he speaks the truth. Again truth and meaning here are almost identical.
Going back to the discussion of honesty, the principle of charity allows for us to engage and assess a speaker and determine his honesty and truthfulness.

3. Honesty and Sophistry

this is Philosophy 101 - Socrates versus those nasty sophists! Recall the sophists were typically orators and teachers of oratory. They believed in the powers of rhetoric. Sadly, truth has little or no relation to oratory then or now. And by oratory I do mean political oratory. The sophists would claim that they could make the untrue more appealing than what is true. There is nothing to really dispute here. It has and is done routinely. Certainly in today's world it is done. Sadly to point to Socrates and his pleas for the truth and the good are often seen as absurd and amusing in today's world.

To go back to Davidson, it could be argued that there is so much uncertainty over what is true in today's world that meaning and belief are in jeopardy. Skepticism, and uncertainly, which in proper doses can be good, can now overwhelm. Gong back to sophistry and Socrates challenge to it, the willful mixing of truth and falsehood by a speaker, ultimately serves no one.

4. Honesty and Capitalism

This is kind of a return to our first point. Accept instead of looking to build a civil society, you are now a self-interested individual. This position is a commonly appealed to in economics, and assumes a certain amount of rationality and shared assumptions between these rational individuals or actors. Both want to negotiate the best deal for themselves. If, however, you find the other party is not rational, or untrustworthy, you will not in ideal circumstances negotiate with him. Often, however, we are not in ideal circumstances and we have to work with such individuals. the point here is that not only in politics but in economics and finance honesty is again required or certainly desired.  I type this and find it mildly amusing. It is simply obvious.

5. Economic Nationalism

My 5th and 6th point are much more speculative, and not purely based upon the importance of honesty.
That said, they were arrived at in the fever of that moment on the train as I approached the tunnel and Grand Central, so I include them here.

Economic Nationalism is something that has been discussed recently n relation to the President's Advisor, Steve Bannon. He made reference to an "economic nationalist" agenda. In short his view of it has been expressed in one paragraph in one interview, that I am aware of.

He absolutely — mockingly — rejects the idea that this is a racial line. "I'm not a white nationalist, I'm a nationalist. I'm an economic nationalist," he tells me. "The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f—ed over. If we deliver" — by "we" he means the Trump White House — "we'll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years. That's what the Democrats missed. They were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people. It's not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about."
In a nascent administration that seems, at best, random in its beliefs, Bannon can seem to be not just a focused voice, but almost a messianic one:
"Like [Andrew] Jackson's populism, we're going to build an entirely new political movement," he says. "It's everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I'm the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Shipyards, ironworks, get them all jacked up. We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution — conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement." (Ringside With Steve Bannon at Trump Tower as the President-Elect's Strategist Plots "An Entirely New Political Movement" (Exclusive), The Hollywood Reporter, 10:00 AM PST 11/18/2016 by Michael Wolff)

A better term or perhaps a comparable term is neo-mercantilism. Both are informative, though the first alludes to fascism and points one to Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy. Neo-mercantilism points one to Nineteenth century United Kingdom, and the United States.  Both point to the "imposition of tariffs and other restrictions on the movement of labor, goods and capital"*Wikipedia.

For me this is a challenge to our values and perhaps that is where we can tie this back to honesty. (I know I am stretching here!). That said, we have come to a crossroads where we need to decide if we are citizens of a nation state, or are we individuals that pursue our dreams regardless of where those dreams lead us. Are we citizens or individuals? Likewise is our loyalty to the nation state or the international or multi-national corporation?

These are in honesty the questions we are pondering today.

In short, do national borders matter? Up until now they largely did not. A large part of the world held that borders should be open and that trade should be free, and yes I speak generously here. There will always be constraints in these domains, the question is regarding degree and the type of constraints.

Once we answer those questions, or as we answer those questions, we will be required to redefine the roles played by all of the above players. And this process will entail a questioning of our beliefs, what we hold to be true, and what are the facts. In short, we are applying what Davidson and others such as Willard Quine called Radical Interpretation. What some of us might simply paraphrase as us asking,"What the f is going on?"

Many I am sure will dispute and challenge the above. I am sure those in philosophy will point out the numerous misreading and simply poor readings of the philosophers I have referenced here. All I can say is that I welcome your feedback and suggestions.

6. The tension between the President and Madonna clings to honesty. (The fact that they are not seen as the same is perhaps why they protested. The very core of the issue.

This points to perceptions and thoughts on gender. I am going to save this for another day and another essay. Sorry.

The Various Faces of Facebook

I have taken to Facebook recently. Since the summer I have jumped into it arguing various positions. Of course it was the election, the politics that pushed me there and continue to hold me there. My post range from the simply absurd, to amusing, to quite serious and sincere. At times serious discussions have evolved with different opinions and positions being offered. It offers both hope and frustration.

Surprisingly, I do find that Facebook is a tool to sharpen one's writing skills. It is a place to practice and experiment with thoughts and ideas with often instant feedback Of course you are limited in what you write contingent upon the audience you have. With some creativity, however, you can at times broaden that spectrum, but in the end it is not a journal. 

In one sense it reminds me of the movie "The Matrix". If you recall they could quickly load into their mind how to do Kung Fu or fly a helicopter. It is similar here. Things that I would normally be timid to state as I am unsure of the facts, can with Wikipedia, and other sources be quickly confirmed and applied. There are of course limits upon that. 

In other cases, where the discussion for whatever reason has taken a turn for the worst, you can easily just offer up an appropriate YouTube clip, absurd or apropos. I am often reaching for the Monty Python clips. In the end though, like the Matrix, it is limited, and leaves you desiring real dialogue and people.

So it has it limits, but again I do think it is a place to experiment and explore ideas. That said, I do think there is a flaw. Yes I am a very slow learner. The flaw, however, in Facebook is the simple fact that you can just delete those you disagree with. 

I was for several weeks going back and forth with a woman who holds positions quite different from my own. And here I was working on a response to something she had posted. I was for several minutes trying to respond. Trying to hit enter and post my response. And she just disappeared. I mean her history of interactions with me were gone. Her page, at least to me, was gone. All were now gone. I thought perhaps the Facebook police removed her? I doubt that happened. After awhile I came to doubt that happened. She was not doing anything obscene or threatening. 

I did not ponder that perhaps she had defriended me. I kept reading the Facebook statement saying that they could not find or that I did not have access to the person whose wall I was trying to post on. And then it dawned on me.  

I have to assume she could not deal with my tedious and annoying posts and removed me from her friends. A simple note or response, an Instant message saying, "hey you are getting annoying" would have sufficed. It was a shame, as I was actually wanting to discuss substantially her views on philanthropy, and education. She had suggested in a previous post that foundations and charitable organizations were not to be greeted with open arms. These were thoughts very different from mine and intriguing, But all gone, like a fart in the wind as they said in Shawshank.

So I am disappointed in her for not sharing her annoyance, if that was fact the way it went down. And if this in fact what happened, it is not good. It is not a model we either can or want to mimic in the real world. We cannot afford to just ignore and / or defriend each other.

On being Christian. . .

Bishop Myriel from Les Miserables
depicted by Gustave Brion

It is Christmas and typically my thoughts and heart focus on the home at this time. It is largely the same this year no doubt. And honestly it is the home, those in it, and the gingerbread too..  That said, this year I do wonder if we have lost something. Yes I raise the question of Christ. Have we neglected Christ, despite celebrating his birthday?

The story of him being born in a stable is presented to us at every Christmas Mass or Service. The question being asked of us each time, I think, is will we let him in? Would we have made room for him? It is customary in some families and traditions to set a plate for him at the Christmas meal.

And let me qualify, Christmas Eve Mass is one of perhaps the two or three times I make it to church each year, and honestly I go largely for the two or three carols I get to sing. So I do not see myself as any great Christian. Honestly, the question of any faith really has not been answered for myself. Regardless of all those speculations, I wonder if many who do profess a faith, have lost their way.

I say this in regard to our responses to the ongoing refugee crisis in Syria and to a lesser degree Libya, and all of the related challenges in Europe, This includes Aleppo, the huge camps in Jordan, Turkey, and elsewhere, the swelling populations of refugees across Europe, and the terrorism that seems to have followed in the past year in Europe. All of it unfortunate. And America's response to all of it seems to be that we will have none of it.*

I talk not of actual refugees that entered our country. We brought roughly 80,000 refugees into the United States in 2016. Roughly 40,000 of those were Muslim. Those numbers are for the fiscal year 2016.**

No, I respond not to these numbers, but more to the attitudes of the President elect and others who cry that we cannot allow such things to happen or continue. We cannot allow such refugees to come into the US due to the terrorist threat. And I know he has not defined a specific policy regarding this. I am aiming not at policy here, but rather what drives our policy. I point to our attitudes, our thoughts and beliefs, our concerns It seems that we will no longer care that such groups exists. Rather, we ask first are we safe? We ask can we trust? We distrust.

This Christmas, we leave Christ at the stable. We have not seated him at our table. I am afraid that Myriel looks down disappointingly.

*https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/02/syrias-refugee-crisis-in-numbers/
**http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/05/u-s-admits-record-number-of-muslim-refugees-in-2016/

Rachel Maddow and an Amazing Hour of TV!

If one wanders Facebook at all you find people can be cruel and just plain nasty. Nothing new there. It is Facebook.  Especially regarding today's political leaders or members of the press who one does not agree with. Just part and parcel of what it is.

Regardless, it is disappointing and annoying to see folks, folks I often engage with, comment on and basically attack Rachel Maddow with nothing but crude language. The comments simply offer nothing. Again, you could simply point to the site. It is, as I said, Facebook.

Tonight, however, I had to just challenge that. Tonight, Rachel just offered a show, which I just found incredible. Tonight, she had on Kellyanne Conway for the hour basically and it was just amazing. You may not find Rachel attractive. You may have an issue with her sexual preferences (though I am not sure how or why that should matter!), You may disagree with her positions, but the woman is informative, challenging, and just offers provocative TV.

Here are some of the points that came out, or were at least touched upon during the course of her interview with Kellyanne:

• Regarding the President elect's Nuclear Tweet this afternoon, after several attempts to pin down what it actually meant, neither Kellyanne nor Rachel really knew what he meant or intended. And Rachel's point that people take seriously what the President Elect says and tweets may or may not have registered with Kellyanne.
• Regarding the selection of  Gen. Michael Flynn for the position of National Security Advisor, what followed was a discussion of what should and what should not be considered in such a selection process. Basically, Rachel was asking do wild assertions made on Twitter or spoken to the press mean anything? The answer seems to be no. Regardless of how outrageous they are.
• This led interestingly to Kellyanne to touch on Aleppo. She was suggesting that the current administration has also suffered from bouts of poor judgment. Point taken, but allow me to continue that thought here. . . Grant that it was a poor judgment, and grant Kellyanne's earlier assertion that Obama also entered the office of President with little experience. So you are saying that the President Elect who again has no experience and who has just brought on a National Security Advisor that has some issues regarding judgment, will do better. OK. 
• The next issue that grabbed me was pay to play, and just the mixing of business and politics. Rachel brought it up in various ways, and each time Kellyanne denied a pay for play relationship would or could exist. Somehow, foreign entities and others doing business with, and facilitating Trump businesses is not or would not lead to Pay to Play scenarios. That the two, the President elect, and the Trump business entity are two distinct things, despite the fact that he basically owns that business.  
• Rachel started the above discussion by pointing to a Wall Street Journal article that came out today regarding the President elect's pick for Health Secretary, Rep Tom Price, trading medical and pharma stocks while in the US House. Keep in mind he is a leading Republican in the House regarding issues of healthcare. Kellyanne was not familiar with the details but again, it seems that she would like to argue that this sounds like nothing. In short, he did nothing unethical trading such stocks while engaged in policy and legislative debates about such. His profits are unintended consequences of his actions, which are obviously benign and with the public good at heart. This seems to the argument for both Rep. Price and the President Elect, There is nothing illegal or unethical here, further, there is nothing unseemly about such business transactions and relationships. This needs to be qualified. 
• Lastly, Rachel brought up the President Elect's relationship with the press. She started with the fact that he has described on several occasions Martha Raddatz of ABC News being in tears on TV upon hearing that he had won the election. In fact that was not the case. Kellyanne did not deny this, so the President Elect either lied or misspoke, but has yet to apologize. Kellyanne basically said that was forthcoming, but this topic just led to the next topic:
• Two questions - 1. Is it appropriate to destroy a news organization because they misrepresented or distorted or even slandered you in their pages? 2. Is it appropriate for a President or a First Lady to pursue such a strategy, or even to simply sue a member of the press for such? Considering the fact that every President throughout history has accused the press of such. Should Harry Truman gone and found a solid trial attorney to pursue such a strategy and destroyed the Washington Post and its Music Critic, Paul Hume, back in 1950? Kellyanne responded that she was unsure if that is a good strategy and that the First Lady was not in fact pursuing such a strategy. She did defend that she does have the right to sue, which she does, but the question was whether it was in fact a good policy or practice.

I have quickly just listed all the things I took in from tonight's Rachel Maddow Show. I wish I saw more of such TV. She is often good, but. . . This is the kind of political debate I want to see. And anyone that ignores these points, regardless of your politics will miss some of the key debates going on right now and those debates have and will continue. 

When I started this around 11 PM, the show, which aired on Thursday, December 22nd was not available on her site (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show ) as of yet. It is in fact now available. I do urge all to check it out!

And thank you Kellyanne Conway for going on the show and thank you for the lively debate of ideas!

And lastly, what is up with Blogger? I go to embed a video clip from the Maddow site, and it will not allow it?