A Hundreth Day's Night and Dickerson's Failure

A few thoughts about where we are as this weekend winds down and the Hundred Day mark of this new President is now behind us. Several items grabbed me over the last two days. I do not desire to list the achievements nor the failures of this President here. I agree with him that 100 days is an arbitrary number and there have been numerous Presidents who have not rocked their first 100 days. Such achievements are more the exception than the rule.

The events I point to happened last night and this morning. Saturday night and Sunday morning.

Saturday night it was the President's rally in Harrisburg. One hundred days into his presidency and he had a rally celebrating the themes, the ideas, which propelled him to the White House. Described in that light it seems almost appropriate. How better celebrate his first 100 Days than with the people who elected him? How better to celebrate than to remind himself and those with him of those themes and agendas that drove the campaign and election, and will now drive and propel his presidency.

That rally, however, failed and betrayed him. The election, his success at the polls, changed the entire equation. He is no longer running a campaign. He is now running a country. To celebrate with those who voted for him 100 days into his term, to celebrate those themes and ideas, is simply to relive the past. It is not merely reliving the past. It is to ignore 51% of the country. The 51% of the voters who did not vote for him in November. In fact, it was a slap in the faces of those people who make up that 51%  of the country. That rally and the speech he offered up last night, was basically salt in the wounds of those who still lament that loss.

So as one of those people in the 51% it was annoying, but it is worse. He has chosen to lead not the country, he has chosen not to extend a hand to those who lost the election. No. He has chosen to attack and assault those who lost. He has chosen to attack anyone who he perceives as not complying with his agenda, not submitting, not bowing to him. Whether they be the press, the Democrats, or anyone else, even Republicans at moments.

Rallies such as the one the President held on Saturday night leaves one with no option but to embrace the common reprise,"Resist!. More appropriate terms come to mind, but that will do. If there is no meeting of minds, no discussion of options between him and those who voted and supported the Democratic candidate back in November, than there really is no other option. Those who pondered how the opposition would engage and interact with the President; those who wondered if the Democrats in Congress would compromise and work with this President have their answer. Such rallies provide an answer.

And it is not only the rally. That was insulting, and disappointing, but that was not the only thing that happened on Saturday night. Immediately after the President's speech, the media, CNN and the like switched over to the Correspondent's Dinner and a related event, the Not the White House Correspondents' Dinner. I watched neither, (Though I did see Will Ferrell's bit!) All I thought was that this was just further evidence that we were and are a country split. One half focused on what was happening in Harrisburg, and the other focused on what was not happening in the White House. All products of a much bigger issue and a President that has no interest, or perhaps no understanding of the issue, much less any ability or desire to correct it.

Now onto Sunday. Sunday as I was cooking breakfast it was the usual flipping through the dial and there on Face the Nation was the President giving an interview to John Dickerson. That is pretty impressive, finding the President on the TV on a Sunday morning. Must have been prerecorded. Regardless, only one piece of it really grabbed me, focusing on what the President has learned since becoming President.

John Dickerson: What do you know now on day 100 that you wish you knew on day one of the presidency?

In a word. . . Nothing.

Dickerson asked the question several times in various ways. I believe after those several attempts, he gave up. He never got what he was looking for, though what he did get was also interesting. So on his first asking of the question, the President responds,"Well, one of the things that I've learned is how dishonest the media is, really. . . " Dickerson, responds,"That's all you've learned, about the media? You knew from the campaign about the media. You said it all the time --"

So the President is encouraged to make a second attempt and answer the question again. This time Dickerson qualifies with."And how do you adapt?"

The president responds with,"Well, I think things generally tend to go a little bit slower than you'd like them to go." He continues,"It's just a very, very bureaucratic system. I think the rules in Congress and in particular the rules in the Senate are unbelievably archaic and slow moving. And in many cases, unfair. In many cases, you're forced to make deals that are not the deal you'd make. You'd make a much different kind of a deal."

The President continues with,"You're forced into situations that you hate to be forced into. I also learned, and this is very sad, because we have a country that we have to take care of. The Democrats have been totally obstructionist. Chuck Schumer has turned out to be a bad leader. He's a bad leader for the country. And the Democrats are extremely obstructionist."

This exchange is what stuck in my head. This is what the President has learned. That the Senate is archaic. That it is slow and that you are forced to make deals that you would prefer not to make. That is the US Senate. It was designed with those traits in mind. The founding fathers wanted a chamber that would slow down the majority and force them to work with the opposition. This was what was debated in the Federalist Papers 200 plus years ago. This was what the Constitutional Convention and those surrounding those events spent their time sorting out.

A President that appears to have not known this helped, and supported the dismantling of the institution when he urged that they embrace the "nuclear option" It is ironic that they had to dismember the senate to get a "textualist" onto the Supreme Court, one who would hold up the Constitution in his decisions.

Ah but the President has learned things in his first 100 days. He has learned that there is value in NATO. He has learned that NAFTA is worth a second look. China, depending on what moment you catch him, can also be on that list. In general though, the President has learned nothing. Even on those that I list, he did not change his position, but rather they came around to his way of thinking. NATO complied with his demands we are told. NAFTA will be spared if our partners comply. He really did not change his mind on any of these.

So I leave you with John Dickerson's failure. His inability to get from the President one item that President had in fact learned. One area where he adopted, where he learned to try something new. The man does not reflect. He does not reconsider positions. We have never heard him say that he was mistaken and that upon reflection would do something different. That was what John Dickerson was after. He wanted to hear the President reflect in some way upon his own performance in the first 100 days,

Instead, he was told that the media is dishonest. He was told that the Senate is archaic and slow, and that Chuck Schumer is a bad leader.

Nothing.


FULL TRANSCRIPT: President Donald Trump's interview with "Face the Nation"

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.