Has Political Correctness Gone Too Far? . . . Afterthoughts

I was heading out of work this past Thursday (5/25/17) evening and in the elevator realized it was another big debate night. Motion Debates, a group trying to revive or simply bring formal debating into our lives has a debate on some provocative topic once a month in my building . The topic this month was whether Political Correctness has gone too far?

This night as they usually do, they had four debaters, two asserting that Political Correctness has gone too far, and two arguing not. They went back and forth and at the end of the night, through two polls, one at the beginning, and a second at the end of the night, concluded that those defending political correctness were more persuasive than those challenging the idea. The winner in these affairs is based upon who was more persuasive,

So with that those defending political correctness had persuaded more people to their side, than those arguing that political correctness has gone too far. I was not surprised. Aside from the fact that we were in the middle of NYC, or perhaps exactly because we were in that locale, those challenging the idea of political correctness just started from a weak and impoverished starting point.

Before I flesh that out, let us define political correctness. The four debaters pointed to several common examples of "political correctness". There was the idea that not all Muslims are terrorists. There was the tension between "Black Lives Matters" and "All" or "Blue Lives Matters". There was the idea that welfare and other government handouts largely go to minorities as opposed to those who are simply poor. 

In short, the discussion was focused on the tensions between various groups in a pluralistic society and how best to navigate such situations. Further, these groups have certain identities, and the question becomes who determines who these people are in these groups? Further, which of these groups has legitimate grievances and issues?

The two solutions embraced in the debate were to either embrace the labels and the associated identities, to be "politically correct", or ignore such labels and empathize with the actual people or individuals, and when necessary apply or appeal to the social science regarding their situations. Those were the two options offered here. That said, even though we can represent them as option A and option B, they are not equivalent, Like any decision, whether we are talking cars models, or homes versus condos, each offers unique benefits and consequences.

The consequences of the politically correct label is that you have a mix of groups ranging from radical and non-radical Muslims, black lives matters, versus those who are not black and those who are blue - the police. There are feminists, and non-feminists. Another is the transgender and gay communities. Each of these groups with their own unique set of beliefs, desires, behaviors, practices, and so forth. It seems like this is almost basic sociology or anthropology.

The alternative offered to this approach is that you do not embrace such labels, but rather simply empathize with the people you encounter. You empathize with individuals, not groups. And if there are tensions you embrace the social science. In short, you try to embrace and understand the individual. In this model you treat people as individuals - love your fellow man or woman. All individuals are equal, and when there is a problem that is when you appeal to culture, politics and economics. 

So we have one that celebrates the diversity of cultures and the various groups that make up those cultures. The other celebrates the individual and the basic respect and empathy each is entitled to, one and all. On those occasions when we cannot empathize, we explore why. And this is where it is interesting. Based on those explorations, we broaden our definition of who we empathize with. The science allows us to empathize with those with different beliefs, and behaviors, and perhaps even who are members of other groups. The two approaches here basically converge.

I would argue that what I describe corresponds with the conclusions of the polls taken. At the end of the night, empathy and social science allow for new subcultures, which are ultimately described in "politically correct" language. We abandon old ways of talking and by updating and enlarging our set of beliefs are now able to embrace others and perhaps even groups. 

So if this approach, that of empathizing and understanding others, is not adequate in arguing against the politically correct, what is?

Now let me again return to the idea of consequences. The consequent or the result of political correctness is to the protect the cultural identity of the other, of minorities. We have already seen that to embrace the individual and science is to largely arrive at the politically correct. Social science argues for the existence of cultural identity and that most individuals are born into groups with such. Therefore, embracing social science and empathy will not allow you to argue that political correctness has gone too far. Perhaps, the science and empathizing have gone too far?

Again, the consequences of being politically correct are to embrace others from different groups, which have different believes, practices, and traditions. They might interpret history and current events differently. They will have different agendas and likewise desire and resolve social issues and social problems differently. They will define these in their own terms, and in fact they may or may not see a problem where we did. In short, by acknowledging such politically correct positions, we are allowing others to fully engage socially, economically, and politically, despite their differences. That is the consequent of being politically correct.

Before I go farther, however, what could challenge such a position? What I describe seems almost the paradigm of liberalism. And please do not confuse my reference with how we today treat the term. What I refer to points to liberty, equality, and tolerance. It is a concept originating in the Enlightenment. Again I ask, if all this is true, how can those challenging political correctness achieve their goal. How can they persuade that political correctness has gone too far, or in fact is actually illiberal?

The response is that you need something of greater consequence. You need something that would justify denying a group access to our markets, to our social and political institutions. In short, political correctness becomes a problem, it has gone too far, when it challenges the very institutions, which allow for it.

Two obvious ones, which we have little tolerance for are the Ku Klux Klan and Nazis. Even then we allow these to have rallies within certain parameters. Even these are allowed to exercise their freedom of speech. The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is another group that we have little tolerance for, yet their website appears to be up and running. All of these run on ideas that are foreign to us. Regardless of how much empathy we have, how much social science we apply, we, or most of us at least, have little toleration for such groups or individuals.

It could be said that the Klan, Nazis, and NAMBLA, are easy ones. Everyone hates them. No one is really arguing for their inclusion into our system, our culture. Yet, there are people in the U.S. that support such movements and ideas. Those people are few and far between, but they are here or there. Those people, those individuals share the values and beliefs of Nazis and Klansmen, and NAMBLA. They just do not act on those beliefs today. So one can argue that they exist, but does that mean they are entitled to inclusion into our culture?

I think it is here that we find that political correctness, if it were to defend such groups, has gone too far. Why is it politically correct to embrace the feminist or the transgender individual, but not the Nazi? What is the difference between these these groups? For me it is the fact that the Nazi challenges our institutions, our traditions, our beliefs. Nazis and the Klansmen do not believe that all men are created equal. NAMBLA challenges the law, asserting that it is acceptable and appropriate for men to be sexually involved with boys. Not only do these groups challenge the law, they challenge our cultural norms and mores. In each case these groups offer up and embrace something that we consider taboo. No argument can be made for their inclusion. They threaten the very cultural traditions and values we hold dear.

This becomes the beginning of a test for the politically correct. Does the group in question, with its own beliefs, and behaviors, it's own norms and customs, challenge our institutions, our beliefs, our customs, and traditions? The Nazis and NAMBLA are easy here - they do challenge our norms. The problem is, however, that in every case, with almost every group, the answer will be yes. All groups in the end challenge our traditions, customs, and our norms.

The question becomes are we willing to tolerate that challenge. Can we tolerate a hijab in our public or private school? Can we accept that a transgender individual requires a public restroom just like the rest of us, and further, can we figure out how to accommodate such needs? Can we accept that the Muslim, or the Black Lives Matter advocate, or the gay or transgender individual will challenge our own faith, our own practices and traditions, our own cultural norms regarding church, state, and family. What are the American people willing to tolerate and not? With 320 million plus of us in the US today, answering that question might take awhile, but that is the line beyond which, political correctness goes too far. 

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. 

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.