Legacy Dreams

Legacy Dreams 

What is the President doing?  To listen to news reports, he is building his legacy.  Possibly by his agreements with Yemen, Myanmar, Cuba, and now possibly Iran, he hopes to show that his vision of greater good the USA is willingness to co-opt or co-align the US with old enemies. In the Christian vision, he turns the other cheek - again and again.  He wants to establish the US as a benign partner to all.   He seems to want to fulfill a campaign pledge to close Guantanamo facility, accomplishing this by reducing the numbers of imprisoned.   The plan now revealed is to release systematically small contingents of prisoners to foreign governments, not any of which are US true friends.  As with his reclaiming Sgt. Bergdahl, we don't know what funds have been transferred or to who.  We do know the target destination countries are mostly insignificant. His view may be that history will record these actions in his favor, payments notwithstanding.  

He definitely seems uncomfortable with senior international leaders.  

We see his unwillingness to recognize "Islamic" terrorism by name.  The right leaning press makes this as an important deal.  Some indicate language is important, but it seems not to this President.  Critics may site the reason may be potential deals pending with questionable Islamic interests, notably Iran.   

Some believe his latest actions are to maintain his relevance, to create headlines, to keep his presence on the world stage.  This may be the case as he originally believed upon entry to his office was of  indefinite durability.  Yet, he did not realize that power and influence are ephemeral, and his time has come.  

It is possible his signature effort, health-care, has been judged by his inner circle as problematic for continued existence in his preferred form, and therefore he must strike out in other ways to make a lasting impression, a legacy of the highest order.  In this context it may have been strategically and tactically better had the health care initiative to have been more successful.  His other measures of regulation in the favor of a "greener" America are also a part of his legacy dreams.  He may believe that no matter how unpopular these measures are now, no matter how much current industry may suffer, no matter how many jobs may be lost,  history will vindicate his actions.   

Basically, the President believes himself to be on the "right side of history."  This pedantic notion is usually applied in the opposite manner, i.e. to be on the wrong side of history.  For some reason, this "right side" ideal may be foremost in his thinking.  

The President seems to be an ideologue functioning without pragmatic guideposts used by many others before him.  Please understand the nature of this form of  thinking, which is to believe his profound insight, his calculated measures, his transference of American leadership to others wanting it,  all comprise a view that the world should be a community of equal interests each with significant merits.

Truth - Magna est veritas?

There is Truth and There is What We Do To It

Magna est veritas et prævalebit ("The truth is great and it shall prevail").

Esdras 4:41

Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.

THOMAS JEFFERSON

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

SIR ARTHUR CONAN DOYLE, The Sign of Four*

As lofty as these seem, equally notable historical figures have a slightly different take, perhaps tempered by reality, on the truth.

Truth will ultimately prevail where there are pains taken to bring it to light.

GEORGE WASHINGTON

Truth is mighty and will prevail. There is nothing the matter with this, except that it ain't so.

MARK TWAIN, Mark Twain's Notebooks

What people believe prevails over the truth.

SOPHOCLES, The Sons of Aleus [fragment]

Let’s add a few more, less articulate, more earthy, and equally accurate.

Truth is great but there are many working hard toward her demise.

Truth  is great, is quotable, is sobering, is enlightening and celebrated – only when you agree with it.

Truth may be hard to kill, but it can be ignored, twisted, tormented, corrupted, and sedated.

There are many truths presented about how mankind should live, but they have been corrupted by the Utopians.  We never ask our dog to be other than a dog, but we do ask ourselves to behave as a species it is not.

*Some of the quotes herein can be found at  http://www.notable-quotes.com/t/truth_quotes.html#TcWHiUBTyPxoIgVK.99

Hacking In

Tragic to many are the numerous hacking of mercantile websites.   Credit cards and debit cards must be replaced or at least re-keyed with a new pass-code.  Inconvenience, loss of identity, and loss of treasure are three of the consequences.  Distrust of online in-store transactions is a collective consequence.

I have wondered how big companies, say like Target, can be so vulnerable to these ubiquitous hackers.  After all, they do pay talented people to keep records secure.  Are these folks lax, lazy, or incompetent?  Are the hackers that much more talented?

So, I ask three questions.
A.  Who is the best hacker?  Answer.  The one who's hacking doesn't get noticed; the one who doesn't get greedy; the one who remains off the radar screen of big activity.
B. Are there hackers from the outside that enter from the inside?  Consider the CTO, Chief Technology Officer, of some company - or even some programmer with high level access.  Suppose that person were compromised, personally or financially, in some way, and want the captured secret hidden.  Might this person not be willing to give the inside access to the outside visitor?  What is your guess?
C. What companies (or governments) have been hacked but don't even know it - for whatever reason.

Update.
The latest from Target (1/17/14) and their hacking debacle is that it has been determine the code was Russian based.   Blaming it on those nasty and tricky  Russians sells. It's believable.  It resolves some aspects of the problem.  Goodness, if it was Russians... what then else have they hacked into?    But I wonder, really wonder.  Some intruders cover their tracks. Some cast aspersions elsewhere. Some deflect the problem.  My gosh, it was only yesterday when the Communists were blamed for a spectrum of problems.   Some politicians turned this blame-game into a career.

New Normals IV

Let's get cynical about government and intelligence.

1. Why does the government want an intelligent population?  It doesn't. Too difficult to manage and govern.
Therefore, it is acceptable to allow the schools to continue failing their  mission.  It is fine for incompetent teachers to stay in place.

2. Why does the government want an intelligent congress?  It doesn't. Too difficult to manage; to willing to compromise; to practical about human activities.  Too liable to do something of lasting value.

3. Why does the government want an ample and well trained military.  It doesn't.  This is too risky for its personal security.  The military lives mostly outside the walls of government and is clearly a threat. 

4. Why does the government want efficient and fair federal agencies? It doesn't.   This increases the expectations of the population to fair and effective treatment.  It is better to keep people slightly off-balance and definitely without high expectations.

The government has now become a systemic force unto itself.
a. It appears to be not responsible to the people, but it follows its own code.
b. It demands a universal PPM manual (Policy and Procedures Manual with massive regulations) to function.
c. It demands huge legislative measures that not a single congressman can understand.
d. It makes decisions outside the scrutiny of overseeing public officials.
e. The government wants and has arranged a totally polarized governing body.  This implies little is done.
f. The government seeks control to manage and dictate all measures of man.
g. With the new ACA now linked with the IRS, the government becomes a powerful intimidating force against its citizens - thereby required desired behavior.
h. With the recent suspension of the Senate rules, the government can exploit to make appointments sustaining and enhancing government power. This will diminish some congressmen from proper considerations on the basis of their state.  States' power is now drastically reduced.
i. The government has developed such an array of regulations, it is virtually impossible for any general oversight, and even local intra-agency oversight is diminishing.
j. It operates essential outside the traditional three branches of government.

Possible flaws in the complete absorption of the citizenry to this new reality.  It seems to be essentially a non human agency, without sensitivity to the maintenence and long term health and well being of the populace.
1. The government essentially views itself as if in a cocoon isolated from the world.
2. It is blind to external threats.
3. It assumes that whatever it does, prosperity will sustain. 
4. It cannot comprehend public deterioration from within, whether spiritual, moral, or financial.
5. It views every social or fiscal problem has a regulatory solution.
6. It believes the country it inherited can be fundamentally changed, and vastly improved within its vision.
7. It reacts to problems with solutions without consideration of unintended consequences.  Basically, it treats a symptom of a problem, leaving the problem in tact.

In brief, this monolithic, almost all powerful government seems to be totally naive about the nature of the people it governs.

New Normals III

Jobs. No Thanks. "I don't want one," is the response from 34.3% of people. This is the latest statistic from the Wall Street Journal, where it is noted this is up from 30% just two decades ago. In a recent paper, Declining Labor Force Attachment and Downward Trends in Unemployment and Participation, by economists Regis Barnichon and Andrew Figura divided those out of the labor force using a simpler standard: whether or not the person says they want a job. the paper is rather technical, but understandable. But it does render a couple of questions. (1) How much unemployment by those not wishing employment can a prosperous nation absorb - and remain prosperous? (2) What is the critical mass whereby this "don't want a job" attitude toward work becomes epidemic in society? The answer the the second question is unexplored.

There is another population out there not yet analyzed. This group, those people employed by in totally non productive venues. Many government workers can be so classified. So also are many in law and order. This is not to say they have no value; they do. They are usually high in relative intelligence. They protect us from another class in society - those that violate laws. But they don't actually produce. One could posit that the Soviet society collapsed partly under the weight of its unproductive human infrastructure.

This new normal reflects the attitude of an endless summer for too many. It indicates that big success will not happen, that the nose upon the grindstone of life is not in their thinking. It suggests a lower standard of living where there is a life that is viable. It diminishes, what for many of us, have long regarded as the natural progression from childhood to adulthood. It indicates a diminusion of expectations in favor of an idealic world of fantasy. It suggests a dangerous trend. This viewpoint and lifestyle assumes that the country is so strong and so powerful it can and will sustain regardless. It suggests a good job shold be delivered without personal effort. It implies an psychological and philosophical emptiness of massive proportions.

In the old days, religions demanded all should strive to contribute, if only in a small way. Pride could be taken in achievement. In the new days, with religion depracated, there are few guideposts, few societal demands exacted upon anyone. Rather we have the new normal that if YOU want to earn more, then seek it, work hard for it, achieve it. But if you don't there is no penalty of any kind. Do nothing - that's ok. Do something - that's ok too.

Lies. So much has been written about the continual barrage of lies we face from advertising to politics. A silver lining to all this exists.  It makes people calloused and hardened to any and every statement.  People are forced to think about what to believe. The new normal of total lies has strengthened the mind of the populace false promises.  I think - or I'd like to hope.

Compromise Not.  Cling to your position until that last moment.  Politics has become a game of chicken.  Polls have determined ultimately what politicians will do. Control the message implies controlling the polls and this in turn implies controlling the agenda.  This new normal suggests a fundamental change in the manner politicians transact business. 


Think big.  Think bold.   Advocate huge programs.  Pass massive laws.  Demagogue the position.  Do little.  Or do Nothing

Comments XIV

Hotels.  Today I am at a hotel in Helsinki.  The hotel maid speaks English fine.  Last month I was in Miami.  None of the hotel maid  understand English.  :)

History.  It seems that history flows along on a river of blood.

Education.  It seems that the less students are willing to do, the more teachers are asked to do.

1.      Trust but verify.  This essential quote from President Ronald Reagan has gripped politics and the American press.  Yet, too many trust and must trust because they cannot verify.  This even goes with scientists themselves.  This is another aspect of problem solving.  It creates impossible problems where the assertion without verification leads to conflicts. Those who insist on verification but don’t see it, become distrustful and this, like an infectious disease, spreads to all comments or “trusting” of such testimonials. You know many people that frequently make obviously unverifiable statements.  It comes to this: eventually no matter what this person says on other matters is suspect - even disregarded.  Trusting, nonetheless, is but an eyelash away from belief.

1.      How do you solve a problem?  If you’re in business you favor business solutions; if a politician, political solutions; if a scientist, scientific solutions.  You use the techniques you know and are comfortable with. If you are running for office, you promise to find the best possible solutions, but you use your familiar techniques.  You cannot escape you.   If you are a politician, say, trying to solve or endorse a scientific problem, you are out of your sandbox (pond).  You still appeal to your techniques perhaps relying on testimonials of those you trust, i.e. those like yourself.   If you are a psychologist, say, trying to solve a math problem, then you are outside your sandbox completely.  Your level of profundity is exposed.  You must learn the math or admit you cannot solve the problem.  Admission of inability is difficult for experts.

 
The Cynic.  First he said he was deprived of puberty, then youth, then middle age, then naivety, then hope, then promise, then dreams, then care, then faith.  This chap has not much further to go.  :)

Implication.  In mathematics or most every subject if I say that A implies B and B implies A, this is the same as saying A and B are the same, or as we say in the business, equivalent. This makes implication a powerful tool of logic.  But there is a weaker logic implicit in the term "to find."  When I visited the artistic retreat far in the mountains, the mantra at the entrance said here "Expression finds Freedom and Freedom finds Expression."  This is a weak form of implication, no where near implicating equivalence, much less the only path to the achievement of either.  But it illustrates the fuzzy nature of  our language.  The expression seems lofty, profound, and even universal, but essentially means little. It is deceptive; it is distracting; it promises much while delivering little.

Having a Plan. There is a favorite line from the movie Tremors, 1990, starring Fred Ward and Kevin Bacon,  I truly like.  Said Fred Ward in one scene, "We always have a plan.  That way we don't have to do anything right now."  That's me.

Problem Solving.  Everybody supports problem solving.  The schools, especially so, as it is tied completely with the mantra of enhancing the teaching of critical thinking.  So, the mandate for no less than the new Common Core Curriculum is to bring this front and center into mathematics teaching.  But is this an impossible problem?  Can  teachers teach problem solving if they themselves are not problem solvers. Most teachers can surely navigate their students through set problems, but are they missing critical instructional understanding of at least a few essential problem solving techniques when problem solving as a venture is not fully appreciated by themselves. My view is that teachers should be constantly challenged by new problems - if only so they feel, firsthand,  the same pain and puzzlement of their students when confronted by new problems. (Mind you, I'm not talking about difficult problems, but only new one that demand teacher critical thinking.) This dimension of puzzlement is where most of their students live. Do teachers fully understand it? 

You cannot teach a skill you yourself do not have.

Ten years.  Suppose a message were delivered to you that you were to be given an extra ten years to do what you wanted, and then regular life resumes afterwards.  What would you do?

Victim.  It seems that once a person regards oneself as a victim of whatever, they also regard that a suspension of normal rules of behavior apply.  It is like the victim has a license to misbehave.


Kathleen Sebelius.  Judging by Robert Gibbs comments yesterday that the Obamacare website is a total WH embarrassment, it seems certain that HHS Secretary Sebelius is on her way out.  Someone big must pay the price.   Robert Gibbs is affable, true, but he is also completely loyal to the President.  This leads us to believe his remarks were orchestrated from on high.

Advice:  As I’ve told students and colleagues for years.  Be careful about giving advice.  If your advice taken, you do assume a measure responsibility. Yet, nonetheless, advise is so easy to give, and is often done with almost no thought of the full circumstances.

Gresham's Law.   This law, simply put, states that bad money chases out the good. Named after Sir Thomas Gresham (1519-1579), an English financier, it was first mentioned in 1858 by Henry Dunning Macleod.   "Good" money is money that shows little difference between its nominal value (i.e. the face value of the coin) and its commodity value.  But when the money is diluted by diminishing the percentage of precious metal in it, the money becomes "bad" and the good money is sequestered by owners for another day.  Bad money has been shown historically to create economic disasters. Witness the debacles in 17th century China. There is a political counter part, to wit when a credible source suggests the welfare-improving choice and a less credible source simultaneously suggests a choice that will make subjects worse off, subjects make worse decisions than when only the credible source is available.  Bad information has an effect.  When conflicting information about various political candidates is presented, it is not evident that the voter will discount the lesser source(s) of credibility.   This implies that the obvious not exactly not that obvious.  Like the dilution of the precious metal, conflicting information dilutes the truth with the consequence that some citizens will be attracted to alternative, less reasonable problem solutions.

In general, bad often drives away the good. 


Compromise  is an art requiring both skill and practice.  In the absence of either, it is an impossible, though essential, tool of government.

Comments XIII

Anonymous Lost.   Does that even exist any more?  I prepared a survey for my students on how they are viewing my course so far.  Simple innocuous questions they are.  And it is really anonymous. But will any of them actually believe it is anonymous?  With so much data piracy, scanning, recording, and peeking these days, the whole idea of anonymous may be vanishing.

This variation on Milton's Paradise Lost is simply an update.  Clearly paradise is lost, but it may be that anonymity is gone as well.  I use to believe I could live under the radar, thinking whatever I said would be too unimportant for anyone to take note of.  But today with big data and unlimited storage, I feel that whatever I say will be scanned or read with an eye to key words - most revealing about the message.

Importance. You know how important you are by the hierarchy of how many people stand in line to introduce your speech.  Most of us have just a single person make the introduction.  "Here's our speaker..." and that's it.   Big-shots get two, one to introduce the introducer.  Super-shots get three.   Anyone that gets four introductions, must be of celestial dimensions.   

Intellectuals.  Being an intellectual does not make you smart. 

Ted Cruz.  I might be willing to book passage on the Ted-Cruz-line. I know there will be a lot of time to explore one corner of the world, and I will know the destination.  While he is ridiculed by both parties, he does stand on principle - rare these days.

Nancy Pelosi.  To paraphrase Winston Churchill, Pelosi has a moderate intelligence, and much to be moderate about.  Her latest confusion is between the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.  I am simply amazed that someone with her apparent intellectual difficulties can rise to such heights within her party.  Many Democrats (e.g. Chris Van Holland) seem far more erudite, more able, and far more intelligent. Oh well, the Republicans have at least their fair share of the same.   Perhaps we should create a Pelosi Club with delimited extremists of all flavors admitted.  The criteria for admission should be misquoting facts, misstating events, and misrepresenting constituencies.

The snub.  For days, it was argued in the press the "What if" of President Obama meeting or even shaking hands with the new Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani. But, Rouhani deftly turned the table by simply rejecting any encounter.  The upshot must be that the one regards the other as essentially irrelevant.  One thing is to be rejected.  This is of the everyday for us all.  It is quite another to be relegated to the lower status - irrelevancy.  You just have to feel a little sorry for our President.

Boring.  I just completed a YAW, yet another Webinar.  It was boring, though boring may be the best attribute one can give to a particular event.  Less flattering comments come to mind.

Wisdom.  It was recently suggest to put my wisdom in a bottle.  I responded by saying that if I did so, there would be plenty of room remaining for more interesting contents.

Formal. You may have attended your formal senior prom. Great.  So you know what formal means.  Dressing up and looking good.   In the educational world the word is flung about everywhere.  We have formal and informal knowledge - that learned in classroom or without, formal and informal learning - classroom or without, and also formal and informal space - in the classroom or not.  The word "formal" seems to be reserved for what happens in the classroom, and is to an extent diminished by "informal"  meaning that which is not.  If educators are required to account for individual informal anything, their classes explode from twenty students to multiples of that.  Teachers need, therefore to account for a multiplicity of understandings, to account for misunderstandings, and worse, to account for misconceptions.   This is not good within any system, not just our educational example. Our teachers may be asked to achieve what we ask of no others - ourselves included.