Suffer the little children

The cover of the current issue of Time magazine, poignantly captures the inhumane and absurd position that the Trump administration has taken regarding parents and children being separated.  The cover includes the president towering over a two-year old girl from Honduras crying for her mother.  Trump is simply staring down at her showing no emotion or giving any hint of caring.  It should be noted that Trump and the little girl are not in the same location.  She is crying for her mother, who is being dealt with by border personnel.  What the cover does seem to depict is the detachment that the president has from those seeking asylum in this country.  As has been reported over and over, there are 2300 children who have been separated from their families.  Those who have been the victims of separation include infants through adolescents.  These children have done nothing wrong and their only “crime” is that they came with their families to seek a better life.

Indeed, the country is not equipped to take all who seek refuge, but there must be a more human approach to making these decisions.  There is no question that the president has an announced bias toward those crossing into the United States into Texas and Arizona.  In his campaigning he referred to the criminals who will come in to murder, rape, and abuse our citizens, yet not all who risk their lives and the lives of their children can be so described.  There are good and industrious individuals who are escaping the terror that they have been living in, whether in Mexico or various Central American countries.  The inane policy forcing the separation of children from their families has consequences that are inevitable.  As these children seek some sense of emotional attention they can only turn to the other children for this reassurance.  The staff that manage their “care” are prohibited from making any overtures toward these children, regardless of their age.  Consider a one-year or two-year old child who has been ripped from his or her mother, and who seeks caring and soothing attention that only a mother can give; but there is no mother.  It is known that these early years are so important in the emotional development of a child as they bond with their parents.  What will be the consequences of the lack of concern for these kids?  Do we accept the Attorney General’s admonition to the parents, “If you do not want to be separated from your children, don’t bring them with you?”    This is the same Trump administration official who tried to quote the Scriptures for justification for the actions taken by the administration.  Lord help us!

Yes, the president has back-peddled on the separation of the children from their families.  The policy that currently exists allows for families to stay together.  Families will be placed in chain-link cages that mirror the shelters where dogs and cats are held.  The dogs and cats are, probably, treated better.  The cages in McAllen, Texas have euphemistically been referred to as the “Dog Kennel”.  On its face, the new policy tends to suggest a backing down from the “zero tolerance” position enunciated by Trump--but not so fast.  Those who cross the border, illegally” will be charged with criminal entry into the country.  Do not lose sight of the fact that the overwhelming majority of those coming into the country present themselves to border patrol personnel seeking asylum, which is quite legal. 

Although parents and children can be kept together, there remain the over 2000 children that have been separated and are “out there somewhere” in one of 17 states that are housing the children.  Have the almost 1500 “lost” children been located?  How do the parents of those who were separated from them find their child or children?  Per the common practice of this administration, there is no plan for the reunification of the parents and children.  How long will they remain separated?  There are multiple federal agencies involved in this chaos, which accentuates the inevitable inability of the government to act in a timely and efficient manner.  As has been stated, all that has happened is that one bad policy has been replaced by another bad policy.  The sad reality of this mess is that innocent children are the pawns.

Is a pragmatic approach the answer?

Recently, I received an email from a friend, entitled “Charles Krauthammer (on Donald Trump)”.  While most of his affiliations are with conservative news sources, he is also a regular contributor to the op-ed pages of the Washington Post.  There is no question that he is a well-recognized and well-respected journalist.  His contributions are, typically, very thoughtful and intellectually sound.  Yet, in the article that has been referenced above, I question the position he has taken.  His position is that President Trump is neither Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal.  It is his argument that Trump is a pragmatist.  Krauthammer defines a Pragmatist as “someone who is practical and focused on reaching a goal” and “usually has a straightforward, matter-of-fact approach, and doesn’t let emotion distract him or her.”

Krauthammer continues by stating that as a successful businessman, Trump sees a given issue as a problem that needs to be fixed and does not see it as a liberal or conservative problem.  He refers to immigration as a problem that “threatens the very fabric and infrastructure of American” and “it demands a pragmatic approach, not an approach that is intended to appease one group or another.”   Using immigration as a problem that requires fixing, Trump’s approach is to punish the children of those who enter the country illegally by separating them from their parents.  While this might be viewed as pragmatic by Krauthammer, it ignores the question of how decent and caring people treat other human beings.  As a psychiatrist, Krauthammer should know the potential ramifications of children being raised in situations absent the bonding relationship with biological parents.  As has been seen with children who have been bounced around in the country’s foster care system, there is an enhanced probability that they will have a myriad of problems as they move toward becoming adults.  Proportionally, there are greater numbers of individuals raised in the revolving door of foster care housed in prisons and mental institutions; they are the homeless, unemployed or underemployed.  As has been reported there are almost 1500 children unaccounted for in this latest movement of separation.  What will be the future for these children?  As a facet of the Krauthammer definition of a pragmatist, any emotion is absent as they “solve problems”.  It is apparent that Trump has given very little evidence of giving a damn about others, whether they be disabled, foreign-born, racially or ethnically different, and Krauthammer would say this detachment should be applauded, not condemned.

The position proposed by Krauthammer poses serious issues, and history is replete with example after example of individuals who took a pragmatic approach to dealing with a situation.  Could it not be said that Adolph Hitler behaved as a pragmatist, as did Ted Bundy and other notable serial killers?  Jim Jones took a pragmatic stance as he ordered his followers to drink the “the cocktail”.  Al Capone and Mickey Cohen followed a pragmatic philosophy in dealing with handling errant individuals associated with organized crime.  Other examples could be given but suffice it to say that pragmatism can easily lead to a very slippery slope and be used as justification for any action.  All of those noted above had goals that they wanted to achieve, and they did so in a practical way and did not let emotion distract them.  Is this the kind of person that should be applauded?  Is this the person that should be the leader of a nation characterized by an orientation of caring and empathy for others?  Is this the person that we want as the president of this great country? 

P.S. Is was only after I began this post that I became aware of impending demise of Dr. Charles Krauthammer and he will be sorely missed, regardless of one’s political orientation.

The absence of effective leadership

Thankfully, television remotes have a mute option.  In addition to being inundated with the ads from lawyers, mattress companies and car dealers, we have had to endure the repetitive, inane and insulting ads by politicians seeking offices from governor to a county probate judge candidate and every office in between.  Mercifully, the field of those individuals proclaiming to change the direction of the state will be winnowed down after next Tuesday, June 5th.   Unmercifully, we will still have 5 more months to wear out the mute button on the remote.  Most of my adult life I have lived in Alabama, and it is my observation and belief that the level of trashy ads this season has reached an all-time low.  It seems as if the candidates are convinced the electorate throughout the state are not bright enough or savvy enough to demand more substance and less in the way of accusations and innuendos. 

The office of Lieutenant Governor is the one race that leaves any thoughtful person shaking their head in disbelief that one of these individuals is but a heartbeat or a scandal away from being governor.   Whether one laced their tennis shoes to go door-to-door in support of Trump in the last presidential election provides no insight about her readiness to possibly be the governor.  Being a conservative Christian is not a prerequisite for holding the highest office in the state as is touted by another candidate.  We see the significance of this office of Lieutenant Governor with the current governor.  Her inability to be an effective leader for the state is evident in the decisions that she has made since ascending to that position.  Recall that she stated that she had no reason not to believe the women who accused then candidate Roy Moore of sexual improprieties, but would vote for him because there was a need to have a Republican in the vacated senatorial seat.  How can this be viewed as effective leadership?  She takes credit for decisions that were made long before she became governor, such as the Toyota-Mazda decision to build a plant in north Alabama.  Her decision to sign the order to have sentries in schools is an ill-conceived idea.  Storing weapons in the school is nothing more than an invitation to disaster. It is conceivable that the current governor is being supported to the extent she is because she is viewed as someone who can be easily manipulated and controlled by special interest groups.  The legislation to remove “economic developers” from the oversight of the ethics commission provides some potential insight to how she is controlled and manipulated. 

It is unfortunate that the current governor is enjoying the fruits of incumbency.  She has what appears to be a commanding lead in the polls and has raised a substantial amount of financial support.  It is my belief that there are other candidates in the Republican party who have the wherewithal to be effective leaders of the state.  There does not seem to be any evidence of either Battle or Hightower being under the control of others nor being manipulated by special interest groups.  The future of the state would best be served if the primary leads to a runoff for the governor’s position.  Governor Ivey does not come across as the kind of individual that can foster a brighter future for the state.  Although a doctor has stated that she is in good health, when she talks with the raspy tone of a retired auctioneer, it raises the suspicion that all might not be well with her health.  If there should be health issues, then we would be looking at the ineptness of whomever wins the race to be the Republican candidate for Lieutenant Governor.  Lord help us!

The meaning of little bitty words

With my most recent posting, I was really attempting to see if anyone was paying attention to what I was sharing.  It is interesting to reflect on the meaning of words.  This is particularly so with the English language.  A word pronounced the same, but spelled differently, has significantly different meanings.  With the difference comes interpretations that change one’s thoughts and perspectives.  For example, if the parents are going to the store, but their child is too lazy to get up and go with the two of them, illustrates how the same sounding words can have entirely different meanings.  How these three different variations of the same sounding word do indeed modify our thoughts and perspectives.  Similarly, how words are used can vary amongst areas of the country.  An example of this is the word, dinner.  In the south it is often referring to the meal at noon, whereas in the north it is the meal at the end of the day.  This brief discussion of the meaning of words leads to the purpose of this post.

In the most recent posting, the word “pact” was included in the title instead of what was meant to be included which was “pack”.  It is possible to make a case for either of the words although a pact of wolves is a bit of a stretch.  Let’s stay with these words.  The word “pact” suggests some type of agreement amongst several people.  For example, the group made a pact to support one another regardless of the outcome of the game.  “Pack” refers to a group that stays together as a group.  You might have a “pack” of Cub Scouts.  The intent in the post in question, was that the technology community could learn from the example of the wolves in the park.  Thus, whether they were a “pact” or a “pack” does not take anything away from the intent of the article.

While on the topic of technology, I am certain that each of us has from time-to-time hit the “send” option only to have second thoughts about sending the email.  You may cringe at the realization that there is not any way to retrieve what you have sent.  Your message, complete or not, right or not, is in cyberspace never to return to you to make those painfully absent corrections.  When we have experienced the “oh crap” syndrome of a premature “send” it is because we were in a hurry or we were impaired to a minor degree or we were not paying attention to what we were doing.  Well, it is my confession that I was influenced by all three of these maladies.  It was Friday evening and I was ready to get on home.  It was after about an hour of “socializing” at a local establishment with friends.  It was obvious, in retrospect, that I was not paying attention.  Once I hit the “save and publish” option, the post was gone.  As I pulled away from the office, heading home, the realization hit me that I did not use the word I intended to use.  Woops, life does go on!

You may be asking, why am I going into such detail about this minor transgression.  Good question.  Having been inundated with meaningless political commercials as we approach the June 5 primaries, I felt it important for me to make the effort to be transparent and forthcoming.  Believe that or not, is an option that each of you have available to you.  Give a damn or not is also an option that is available.  Shake your head and shrug your shoulders in a display of, “so what”, is also an option available to you.  Well, I did what I could.  Take care and enjoy life.

Why the tech pact needs the wolf pact

Recently, I received an email from a friend that included a video about the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park.  What is the significance of this decision?  Well, with the return of the wolves, who had been gone for over 70 years, the entire eco-system was altered.  Due to the absence of the wolves the population of deer had gotten out of control and the deer were destroying the vegetation.  With the loss of vegetation, the number of other animals decreased, the rivers and streams were altered because of erosion of the land.  The wolves were reintroduced, and they began to attack and eat the deer.  Vegetation began to grow, animals returned, rivers and streams were no longer impacted by the erosion, and the entire eco-system was vastly changed for the better.  The lesson to be learned was that a balance must be maintained for the eco-system to survive.

Let me draw an analogy that is having a very significant effect on the human eco-system.  Technology has become so ingrained in the everyday activities of all of us that we cannot leave home without our cell phone or iPad and we get into a driverless car that was built by robots.  We click a device that closes the garage door, sets the security system, and turns off the lights in the house.  We are taken to an office where we are admitted to the building by a mechanism that recognizes our face and unlocks the entry door.  We go to an area that houses our computers, printers, and fax machines.  We have a device on our wrist that is a small computer that allows us to never be without technological contact with other technological devices.  This same little computer measures the number of steps we take, calculates the number of calories we eat, and gives us up-to-the minute calculations of our weight and body fat.  Sitting at our desk, we communicate with others by email, fax, or text. 

In addition to the above, we can use the Internet to do most of what needs to be done for us on a day-to-day basis.  We can shop at the grocery store and have the groceries delivered to our door.  We can contact a restaurant and be put on the waiting list for a table.  We can order goods from Amazon or Walmart and they will bring them to our home and put them inside the front door.  Communication with others is done through Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter.  Education has also been altered by technology.  An increasing number of classes are being taught to students located throughout the world.  Complete undergraduate and graduate degrees can be earned never having been in a classroom.  Tests are graded by a machine, not an instructor.  Students are registered for classes by accessing the Internet.  Libraries are becoming more and more unnecessary with the development of Google. 

Although not exhaustive, all that has been noted has one thing in common—there has not been any human interaction.  There have not been individuals communicating face-to-face with one another.  There has not been the opportunity for one person to interpret another person’s facial expressions, gestures, posture, or other signs of non-verbal communication.  Instructors have not been available for students to ask questions, and there is an absence of dialog between instructor and student and student to student.  We are losing the ability as humans to interact with each other.  As Albert Einstein is reported to have lamented, we will become so dependent on technology that we will no longer know how to engage in interpersonal communication.  Have we gotten to this time?  Is the “eco-system” out of balance?  Witness the absence of interaction between family members sitting at a table in a restaurant having dinner.  If it is a family of four, each of them, parents included, are engrossed in their cell phones.  When classes are dismissed on the campus of a university, the first action of most of the students is to reach for their cell phone to check their email or texts, or to send an email or text.  Do we need to reintroduce the art of personal interaction?  What will be the price to humanity if we continue as we are going?  We need to stop and reflect on the impact of the reintroduction of the wolves.  What is the message inherent in this example?