So while the Russia story churns on, while we watch the bizarre tactics and strategies of Mitch McConnell in the Senate, things are happening. the Presidents team is implementing their vision of a proper government. And I do not point to the circus in the White House. Rather, what I allude to are actual policies and government agencies that his cabinet members are responsible for. In short, some of his cabinet officials are doing what they came there to do.
The below is a short summary of such "successes", focusing here on the Department of Justice. I write this for two reasons:
The first to just list in one place some of the actual "successes" the Trump White House could be boasting about. Notice that they do not.
And number two - though the investigation of the 2016 election, and all its ruminations, though an important story, is not the only story.
Basically what follows are summations of various news articles from both major "fake news" outlets and others.
Let us start with the Justice Department:
"Adoptive Forfeiture,", the program gives police departments greater leeway to seize property of those suspected of a crime, even if they were never charged or convicted of a crime. This policy was previously in place and was dismantled by the Obama administration. It was basically a tool used in the war against drugs. It has in the past often been misused as it became a source of revenue for local police. The Justice Department interestingly would take a cut of any the property confiscated. Today they have put certain restrictions but its use, but basically it is back.
On Wednesday, the Day the President tweeted that "The United States Government will not accept or allow ... Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military", Jeff Sessions' Justice Department filed court papers arguing that federal civil rights law does not protect employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation.
In an unusual move the Justice Department offered a friend-of-the-court brief regarding a case happening in NY involving a dispute between a privately held firm and a former employee. In the brief, they assert, “The sole question here is whether, as a matter of law, Title VII reaches sexual orientation discrimination,”. They conclude that the law does not protect against such. “It does not, as has been settled for decades. Any efforts to amend Title VII’s scope should be directed to Congress rather than the courts.” In short, they are arguing that there is no federal protection against an employer firing someone over being being gay. lesbian or transgender.
The Justice Department on Tuesday again announced that it was implementing requirements for certain grants available to cities and towns. these new requirements would punish so-called "sanctuary cities". “This is what the American people should be able to expect from their cities and states,” Mr. Sessions said, adding: “These long overdue requirements will help us take down MS-13 and other violent transnational gangs, and make our country safer.”
The response from sanctuary cities regarding such arguments is simply that the goals of the Justice Department do not correspond to the goals and responsibilities of local law enforcement. They suggest that immigrant populations, both legal and illegal, will no longer trust the local law enforcement, allowing crimes to go unreported and ultimately allowing their neighborhoods to be havens for criminals.
Now the Justice Department did to impose a similar regime this earlier in the year, and were quickly closed down by a Federal Court in San Francisco. Sessions and his team are again exploring other ways to force "sanctuary cities" into compliance.
In the healthcare arena, one of the things one routinely hears, and this also goes to identity theft is in relation to Medicare fraud. This is two fold problem in that it an additional tax on an already challenged system and further it preys upon seniors who rely upon the system, either involving them in fraudulent services or simply stealing their identities.
Yet, it was reported on July 30th by the National Law Review that he has trimmed the staff of one of the strike forces responsible for such investigations. Now interestingly this group was responsible for complex corporate health care fraud. this is opposed to fraud committed by individuals or practitioners. Insurance companies and larger corporate entities are safer or safer.
Then there are the voter ID laws, which have been in the news for the last several years. The Obama administration had asserted that such laws were not only discriminatory but being used by states to intentionally to limit access to polls by certain populations. In short, those who do not have driver licenses, do not have a US Passport, nor have served in the military, etc. Basically, older, poorer people typically black and latino.
The Texas legislature had passed one of the most stringent of such laws, and it was found discriminatory. They went back to work and rewrote the law and the Obama Department of Justice took them to court again. The case continues on in 2017, however with a new President we have the Sessions Department of Justice. And with the new administration, they have flipped. The Department of Justice today supports the revised law. In a newly filed brief, they claim that the new law "eradicates any discriminatory effect or intent".
Lastly, there is pot - marijuana. There are several recent reports that the Justice Department's "Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety is expected to issue a report next week that advocates believe will link cannabis use to violent crime, and will call for tougher sentences for growers, sellers and users." (Chris Morris, Fortune Magazine, Jul 24, 2017).
The article goes on to point out that Jeff Sessions has already gone before committees in Congress arguing to "rescind a Justice Department budget amendment that stops the agency from using federal funds to block states from implementing their own marijuana legalization bills, both medical and recreational. (Twenty-nine states allow medical marijuana usage, while eight, plus the District of Columbia, have legalized recreational use.)"(Chris Morris, Fortune Magazine, Jul 24, 2017)
In today's world you rarely see an argument. I am referring to logical, well stated arguments with logically sound and valid premises and conclusions. Let me restate that. You do not see such arguments in Facebook, a place where many today congregate, get their news, and form their opinions. Rarely on Facebook, does one see an argument. You do not encounter valid and sound premises and conclusions on Facebook. Yet, it is for many the closest they come to engaging in any type of political discourse. I myself find it addicting. I am intrigued with it, despite its issues. It is with that, with people's reliance upon it, and my own habit in mind that I inquire here.
A cat meme. . . in case you needed to know.
So on Facebook. regardless of whether you agree or disagree with someone, whether you feel strongly about a position or not, you typically assert what you believe in one of two ways. You assert the idea or belief with either a meme, or a video. Neither is particularly satisfying. They work wonderfully perhaps for cats and wildlife, but neither leads to a conversation or a discussion. Such props rarely lead to an analysis of premises and conclusions, of positions and the ideas behind them. Such things are not the intent of memes and videos in the first place.
A political meme. . .
The meme is today's version of a bumper sticker. Unlike a bumper sticker, however, you only encounter a meme for some limited time. The bumper sticker is on the cars in front of you, which you see at the same traffic lights every day, perhaps over a period of weeks, months, even years on those same cars. You might react to a bumper sticker initially, but then you see it again and again and again. It fades over time. With the meme you do not have such time to digest and respond. You simply react to what is on your screen but luckily it is gone soon enough. Often you only see a meme once. If it is really good, really effective, it might linger for a little bit. The effective ones provoke. All are typically short one sentence rhetorical statements, usually with an image behind the text. Together, that image and statement grab your attention. The best of them might make you pause and think, but basically they cause a reaction. Either you will strongly agree or you will strongly disagree with a meme. And those that do not cause such a reaction are failures.
The classic "My child is an Honor Roll Student. . ."
The successful meme causes the viewer to respond either affirmatively or negatively to it. It causes one to react contingent to the beliefs and values the viewer holds. It is, if it works, a litmus test betraying one's positions, one's values. Again, the goal of a good meme is to provoke a strong reaction. What that reaction is. . . is contingent upon who the viewer is.
It is hard to engage a meme. You are either for it or against it. The typical response is a "like" of some sort. It might make you laugh or you just give it a thumbs up. These are responses of those who are sympathetic to it. You do not, however, ask a question of a meme. No one asks,"What does this mean?" or "What are you talking about?" regarding a meme. It is not done. If you ask such things, you are not really asking anything, you are challenging the meme and those who posted it. And your 'question' is responded to with mockery. It is almost like a gang identifier, warning all that this space belongs to a certain group or gang, but like a gang identifier it dares you to challenge it. Remember, the meme causes a reaction, a response, positive or negative.
In short, such questions neither deserve nor need a response. The questioner is perceived as someone who does not get it, as perhaps clueless. The questioner is not seen as trying to understand the mime, but actually attempting to challenge it. He or she is in some small way a threat. Again, you are really not asking a question, you are challenging the meme, and those who posted it. It is as simple as that.
Following the cat meme is the animal and wildlife video!
Videos, which are also shared on Facebook, do offer more substantial opinions, perspectives. They can run for five, ten minutes. Nothing too long, but enough to sway a person's opinion. They do in a way offer arguments and one is perhaps better able to challenge them. Granted you cannot argue with the video, but it is easier to post a response challenging the points made in the video. How the poster responds may vary but it is easier to engage a video as opposed to a meme. Even with that, it is typically folks in agreement liking it, and with shared positions that you typically see in the comments. Whether it be cats or politics typically the comments found under such are largely in agreement. In most cases, the people posting share much more than just memes and videos.
In general though, videos are more accessible to dialogue. They can be a starting point for a conversation, unless they deceive. Unless they simply provoke. Ideally you want both, a set of facts presented coherently and effectively. The ideal is to sway both emotively and intellectually. On Facebook that ideal is rarely achieved. Rather what we have are videos that only push a position by causing a response. They, like memes, work by provocation.
And just as with memes there are various images and themes that will provoke responses. There can be an appearance of reasoned argument, but not. They can lay out an argument or they can appear to be such, but not. Videos can deceive and distract, just as a magician does, replacing the elephant with an empty box. Videos can have the appearance of reason but actually persuade with distraction and deception. And such videos lead no where. They misinform and actually do no service to those who believe them and take them as true, as valuable.
One of the worst offenders I have encountered regarding such videos is immigration author and journalist Roy Beck's colorful gumball immigration video, "Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs - NumbersUSA.com". I have encountered this making rounds routinely and it seems to have been made back in 1996.
The basic gist of this video is that the US is bringing in a million immigrants a year with the intent of eliminating poverty in the world. He points out that the US will never achieve its goal - there are just too many people in poverty in the world. Therefore we should abandon our policy of bringing in such immigrants. He presents some impressive numbers based upon United Nations / World Bank data. Further, he stands there on his stage with multiple jars of gumballs. Each gumball representing a million immigrants. You see before you in those gumballs the scale of the problem. Poverty truly is a global problem. Further, the US attempt to solve the problem a gumball at a time, considering all the jars and all the gumballs he has there, is absurd. It cannot be done.
Not only does he point out the basic problem with such an approach, he points out that this is not good for the US, nor the countries and regions these people originate from. Such a policy, he points out stresses the US's infrastructure and and takes money that could be better spent on its own citizens. Likewise, he points out that this does not help the regions that are struggling with poverty. The US is in fact taking their best people, leaving these regions without the very talent and human capital that could help pull them out of such a dire reality.
The last argument might actually have some merit to it. Maybe the US is stealing the best and brightest. That said, the basic argument being offered here is false. No one in the US is encouraging immigration as a way of eliminating world poverty. No one in or out of government is suggesting that bringing millions of immigrants to the US will help those who remain behind in their homelands, It will not help the hundreds of millions who continue to struggle with the challenges of poverty.
In short, the eloquence of his stage and his presentation, the research done to substantiate his claims, are all there. Not only the preparation and the stage, but the gumballs, and the jars, and the bourbon sniffer that he stands there spinning that lone gumball in as he makes his points. All are all very impressive. That said, none of it takes away from the point that he is arguing against a position that no one has asserted.
His argument against immigration is valid if and only if his first premise is true: That the US Government has adopted an immigration policy with the intent of eliminating world poverty. That premise is false, and with that the rest is worthless. The stage, the gumballs, the numbers, all are for nothing.
It is a common fallacy, a type of invalid and unsound argument. The above is an example of a straw man argument. In short, the argument is false as the first premise, which is typically what is being challenged, does not accurately represent what is being argued against. Mr Beck and his team have created a "straw man", versus an actual position regarding immigration and why the US desires to bring in a certain number of immigrants each year.
Another video that caught my attention is one the NRA recently released. Originally on NRATV on July 1st, I found it too making the rounds on Facebook. Basically it is an agitated speaker, a commentator, Grant Stinchfield responding to the "violent left’s meltdown" over Dana Loesch’s recent NRA advertisement, another video that recently made the rounds.
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgMRP4KOALw )
I will only comment on Grant's video, which I encountered last week. It was last Friday and it did effect me. When I listened to it, I was just taken aback. I had heard about earlier NRATV videos and all, but never listened to them. Here is this man against a black backdrop. It is just him. He is near hysterical. He is in a rage. And he makes all these bizarre claims. He is challenging the violent left. The shooting of Steven Scalise at that Republican Baseball practice is referenced. Kelly Griffin with her head is shown. After maybe a minute, maybe, I have had enough. He is too intense. It is his tone, his pace.
I went back to the post and asked who is this guy and what is he talking about? The poster of the video went back and forth with me for a while. Another person on the post took over after awhile and responded to my queries. This went on the rest of that afternoon and continued on into Saturday. We stopped Saturday afternoon. He got tired of me trying to make sense . I thank him for his patience with me but again, I was just trying to understand. What was the point of all this?
Friday night I arrived at the conclusion that this video was not really intended to communicate but to divide. I still believe this. I suggested that ultimately it is a way to justify ignoring half of America. It exaggerated the actions of a few and and then suggested that those who are Democrats, who are liberals, etc. were somehow responsible for these actions. He suggest that if they are not responsible for these actions then at the least they are complicit in them. Again, it seems like an argument for ignoring such a group. It would be appropriate if true. Interestingly. we are talking about more than 100 million people who would probably consider themselves liberals, Democrats, members of the left, or at least agree that they hold some those political views.
The violent acts we are talking about range from the recent shooting at the Republican baseball practice in VA, where Steve Scalise, the House whip, was shot, to Kelly Griffin with her gory head. We are talking of Snoop Dogg in a video of him shooting a clown which looks like the President. There are references to the violent protests in Berkeley and other similar incidents, which were occurring earlier this year. Again, these are unfortunate events, some tragic, others simply in bad taste. They really say little regarding the 100 million plus people who voted for Hillary Clinton and again who have certain beliefs regarding the government and its proper role in our country.
In writing this essay, I went back to the video on YouTube. I have to say YouTube is amazing. I did not really want to listen and re-listen to this video. YouTube provides a transcript as one of the options! If you read the transcript you quickly realize this is another straw-man argument of sorts. This video is not a challenge to liberals, it is a challenge to the violent left, whoever they are. This guy is in fact after them.
That said, he does provide some hints as to who the violent left is. He points to a "Cammalleri" who wrote a letter to the NRA protesting that prior video. I imagine it is not Michael Cammalleri of the LA Kings, despite the YouTube transcription. Probably Carmen Perez, one of the co-founders of the Women's March, which is also referenced by the speaker.
He goes on to reference Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom of CA, a prior mayor of San Francisco and according to his Wikipedia page exploring a run for the CA Governorship. He then points to DeRay Mckesson, a civil rights activist and member of the Black Lives Matter movement. He asserts that Mckesson is responsible for property damage to more than 850 businesses and injured more than one hundred law enforcement officers. This is an especially serious charge, which is quickly stated and then moved from. He goes on to mention Chris Murphy, junior Senator from Connecticut, and Michael Bloomberg.
So he is pointing to democrats and liberals. He is asserting that Michael Bloomberg, Gavin Newsom, DeRay Mckesson, and Carmen Perez are responsible for these violent shootings, riots and Cathy Griffin's video. The left has indeed become the violent left. What we have here is an "ad hominem" argument. It is an argument, which is directed against the person or persons rather than the position they hold. None of the people he lists, Bloomberg, Newsom, or Mckesson are guilty of any of these crimes. None have been charged in relation to any of these events nor are such charges forthcoming. He is associating people he disagrees with politically with violent often tragic crimes. And with that association they do become irrelevant. They can now be ignored. That is the intent.
Two other points to be made here in relation to this video. The first regards the use of such events as the shooting of Steven Scalise to brand those on the left as violent. This involves not only flawed logic, it is disrespectful to those who were shot, the victims. It is to use them and these events cheaply. It is to disregard the real causes of that shooting, an apparently lone frustrated man who saw something of value in such a shooting. And the second point is that this video diminishes the tragedy or seriousness of such shootings as he list such events with the silliness of Cathy Griffin and Snoop Dogg.
Let me end this with this. The memes I started with, the two videos I explored; none want you to engage. They want to end conversation. In each, the conclusion they offer is that there is no need for conversation, the answers are obvious. The meme, the modern day bumper sticker, the internet's version of graffiti or street gang identifier, just demands your thumbs up. The videos have you believe that immigration is a failed impossible policy, and that we must defend ourselves and our liberties from the violent left. Both are patently false. All are typical of what can be found on Facebook. Each involves a certain thoughtlessness, a disregard for logic, an embrace of sentiment, and a nasty aftertaste.
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 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.
"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.
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.
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.
Today reside in Valhalla, NY with my wife, Joanna. I attended Rutgers University in New Brunswick, NJ, earning a degree in Philosophy. I still enjoy reading authors such as Maurice Merleau Ponty and Hans Gadamer, but lately I spend more time on trends in Information Technology. Before finding my way to Rutgers I did try my hand doing vocals for a band-something that still haunts me. I am a bit of a runner doing an occasional 10K, a Half Marathon and even Marathon. Today I divide my time between an old colonial house, tinkering with music promotion, and reading when I can.
