Game of kings

Earlier today I waited for my friend to come to the house so that we could go out and play golf.  This is a masochistic experience we engage in a couple of days a week.  Occasionally, I also join a group of “seniors” on Saturday.  Golf is a game that was developed by some sadistic individuals, originally in a land across the pond.  It is referred to as the game of kings, and the somewhat modern version of the game dates to the 15th century.  It was at around age 50 plus that I decided to give the “ole game” a try and I must confess that it has been the most difficult endeavor I have ever tried to undertake.  Not only are the rules a bit strange, archaic and at times, arbitrary, but the game itself is one hell of a challenge.  To make the effort to develop some measure of self-respect, I took a few golf lessons.  In these lessons I learned that to be worth a damn, it starts with how you hold the club.  A contortionist would no doubt be the most able person to follow the “club-holding” instructions.  My attempts proved to be a bit futile, so I took the approach made famous by Frank Sinatra and “did it my way”!  Another lesson focused on the way you stand and “aim” where you are going to hit the ball.  This lesson was a complete failure on me and to this day, I confuse anyone who has the gall to join me for a round with how I stand; yet often the ball does go where I think I wanted it to go.

Stroking the little dimpled ball is also an art that few can master.  Contacting the ball can be influenced by that damn grip and how you hold your arms, twist your body, consider the velocity of the wind, elevation and the singing of the birds.  The point being that the number of variables that come into play in the stroke and follow-through are legion.  You damn well better not talk, cough, sneeze, clear your throat, or move more than a fraction of an inch and do so in complete and utter silence.  There are multiple aspects to the game of golf and I am just touching the surface of all that the game entails. Equipment is so, so critical.  Manufacturers of the equipment are regularly coming out with a better driver, putter and every other club to make you begin to approach the ability of Jack Nicholas and Tiger Woods.  I’ll never forget an Assistant Pro at a country club telling a friend, “Mr. Moyer, you can’t buy a game”, but that did not stop Mr. Moyer from buying every new version of a club that was made and most piled up in his garage.  Well, I fell victim to the manufacturer’s harangue and dropped around $2000 for some “good equipment”, but the Assistant Pro was right, “Mr. Crow, you can’t buy a game”!  The ball, another critical component.  That little dimpled sphere is also subject to multiple variations.  The number of dimples, the configuration of the dimples, the softness or hardness of the core and on and on.  A frigging ball we are talking about, not a surgical instrument.

Oh, what you wear also comes into play.  You had better emerge onto the course with a shirt that has a collar-yes, a collar.  Obviously, a collared shirt is an important factor in how you play this inane game.  I have been with someone who did not have the required shirt and was forbidden to play on the course.  Anyone who has watched a game of golf on TV will recall that the temperature can be 200 degrees, but every player must wear long pants. Apparently, self-torture is a contributing factor to playing the game of golf.  Now, the peons playing on local courses can wear shorts, but you better have a collared shirt.   

Prior to his passing, I use to play often with my good buddy, Chuckie, and more than on one occasion he would turn to me and say, “Richie, why the hell do we keep trying to play this game?”  I guess we were trying to build character!  It should be noted that we never practiced and then would get frustrated and berate ourselves for duffing a shot or missing a put. 

A question to be raised in any discussion about the game of golf, is why do they build houses around golf courses?  It has been said that the word golf was the only 4 letter word left, hence the name of the game.  The spewing forth of multiple variations of whatever obscenity or profane expression one can think of are regular utterances on any course where the “game of kings” is played.  Incidentally, a rather common explanation for the derivation of the word golf is that it means, “Gentleman only, ladies forbidden”.  This might give some degree of superiority to the “real men” who spend an inordinate amount of time hitting a little ball with a stick that has a big end to it, but it isn’t true.  Anyone for a round of golf? 

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.