Action is not leadership; solutions are leadership.

We often see leaders as people who take action, and that is certainly part of leadership. But, action in and of itself is not leadership.

Anyone can take action at any time. People often act out of a need to do something, anything. This is just reflexive action, something done without much thought. Reflexive action is done out of frustration. It is done without a solution behind it.

Here, I am struck that this has been a large part of Donald Trump’s approach to how he manages. To be clear here, I do not like Trump, his policies or his approach to running the government or leading this country. However, with that said, as someone who does focus on leadership, I can step away from my feelings and focus on the leadership elements at play here.

In a real crisis or emergency, we all act reflexively, sometimes doing the very first thing that comes into our head, perhaps even the very thing we should not do.

In the case of Donald Trump, people have always acknowledged that he can act impulsively, even impetuously. He responds with his gut feeling. But, that is not leadership. The president has to be the leader 24/7. He cannot be the nation’s id.

There are two situations that highlight how these reflexive actions by Donald Trump shows the lack of a solution behind them. The first was his decision of end the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program. The second was the recent Zero Tolerance policy which erupted into bad optics about crying children being held away from their families. I don’t want to focus on the politics of the two situations, but on the process. In both cases, Trump took the action and then tossed the issue over to Congress to solve. He presented no solution beforehand, no outline of what would be acceptable to him as a solution.

On DACA, there was great confusion on what he would accept. On one day, he said one thing, which he later reversed. He created a problem, using the DACA children as a bargaining chip, to force Congress to come up with a solution he could accept. A year later, there is still no solution to the DACA dilemma. Trump offered no solution. He waited for Congress to come offering solutions in the form of proposed laws. Nothing substantial came of it.

On the Zero Tolerance policy, he did something similar. He ordered Attorney General Jeff Sessions to implement the Zero Tolerance policy. By doing so, he wanted to put pressure on Congress come up with a solution to the immigration problem. As of today, there is no solution on the horizon. The proposed legislation, according to all sides, has no chance to pass Congress. And, the Trump White House has offered no detailed legislation or even an outline of what would be acceptable.

Those who support Trump applaud that he takes decisive action. Yes, both were decisive actions. You can see it in many of the things he has done. He ended the administration’s support for health care subsidies. He pulled the US out of the Paris Climate Accords, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the UN Human Rights Council. In the case of the TPP, no other agreement was presented in its place that would keep the United States plugged into trade with the Pacific nations. Perhaps he is still waiting for those countries to come back with a trade deal, but nothing has really happened so far on that. In the meantime, China has take advantage of the vacuum.

As a leadership example, however, they are empty action. None of those came with solutions attached to them. Perhaps it is part of Trump’s history of how he operates where he takes an action and then waits for someone to solve the problem he creates or for the other party to come up with an acceptable solution. He just transferred that behavior to the Presidency.

While we want and expect action from our leaders, we really need solutions. That is the hard part of leadership, crafting a solution. But, it is a necessary element of leadership.

I learned, from my wife, one principal’s approach to addressing problems. Her principal told her, “I don’t mind you bringing me problems, but I expect you to come with a solution for me to consider. Don’t just being me problems.”

Anyone can take action and create other problems in the process. No real thought is required. But solutions demand hard thought and work. Still, that is what we really need from our leaders.

I have a question for Gov. Abbott

---

Yes, I have a question for Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Attorney General Ken Paxton. How far would you go to protect my right of religious liberty in the face of a law that goes against my religious views?

Like many other conservative leaders, all three have been vocal in arguing that both elected officials and regular citizens should not be forced to do something that is against their religion. They came out forcefully with respect to individuals’ rights to not be forced to provide services to gay weddings (a cake baker, for example) or an elected official’s right to not be forced to approve marriage licenses (county clerks) or perform a wedding ceremony (justice of the peace) for a gay couple. This is part of Abbott’s reasoning for his position, “The Texas Constitution guarantees that ‘[n]o human authority ought, in any case whatsoever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion.” Paxton, speaking about the U. S. Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, said, “This ruling will likely only embolden those who seek to punish people who take personal, moral stands based upon their conscience and the teachings of their religion.”

The Texas Senate approved a bill allowing county clerks to recuse themselves from signing marriage licenses for same-sex couples because of religious objections. Again, this was based on the idea that elected officials should not be forced to follow a law that goes against their religious beliefs.

The Texas legislature is now debating a new law that extends that idea of religious liberty. Called the “Freedom to Serve Children Act,” Texas’ House Bill 3859 extends religious liberty protections to providers within Texas’ child welfare system, allowing them to decline services to individuals based on “the provider’s sincerely held religious beliefs.” Child welfare providers can also require children under their care to receive a religious education, including putting them in religious schools, even if it is different from the child’s home religious upbringing.

As I have said before, I take people’s convictions at face value. I don’t question them. So, I trust that Abbott, Patrick and Paxton truly believe that the government should not force us to go against our own personal religious beliefs, regardless of the consequences and potential abuses of that position, for individuals and elected officials.

Abbott recently signed Senate Bill 4, which makes sheriffs, constables, police chiefs and other local leaders subject to Class A misdemeanor charges if they don’t cooperate with federal authorities and honor requests from immigration agents to hold noncitizen inmates who are subject to deportation. It also provides civil penalties for entities in violation of the provision that begin at $1,000 for a first offense and climb to as high as $25,500 for each subsequent infraction. The bill also applies to public colleges.

So, here’s my question to Abbott, Patrick and Paxton. If my religious beliefs tell me that I should not follow the mandates of Senate Bill 4, the so called “sanctuary cities” law, would they defend my religious rights? If I am a Sheriff or Police Chief and felt that my reading of the Gospel directed me to welcome the foreigner, regardless of legal status, do I then have a right to refuse to follow SB 4? Will Gov. Abbott and Attorney General Paxton go to court to defend me? After all, as Jesus said, “I was a stranger and you took me.” If I interpret that to mean that I should not throw out the immigrants, is that not part of my religious liberty?

Do my rights of religious liberty extend to this issue or just to gay marriage, and only if I am against gay marriage?

I would believe that think that if you defend one person’s right to religious liberty on one issue, you would have to defend all people’s rights on all issues because you are arguing the principle not the issue. Right? They are arguing for their positions based on constitutional rights.

If Gov. Abbot, Lt. Gov. Patrick or A. G. Paxton aren’t willing to answer my question, can you?

If you’re not challenging yourself, you’re not getting better. Apply for the Tri-City Leadership Program.

The Tri-City Leadership Program is accepting applications for the 2017-2018 program year. The Tri-City Leadership Program builds on more than 20 years of leadership training services in the Tri-City area. More than 300 community leaders have benefited from previous community leadership programs in the Alamo, San Juan and Pharr communities, including some who have gone on to elected positions and other leadership positions. Others learned new skills they were able to apply in their work, community and home environments.

How does the program work?

The program starts with a two-day retreat where the class participants go through a variety of team-building and learning activities. They get through a variety of challenges as a group, small teams and individuals.

TCLP class members have members start off the year with a kick-off weekend retreat in late September that provides an intense, 2-day team-building session that helps members come together as a cohesive group. The team members learn new skills that help them start developing their team-building skills.

Class members meet once a month, October through May, to hear key community leaders about important issues and trends impacting our community.

Among the topics covered are: local history, local government, education, economic development, criminal justice and community organizations. Special topics can be added when possible. Class members participate in various tours and visits to local community facilities as part of their training.

Class members are encouraged to get involved in community volunteer opportunities, including chamber committees, city committees and school district committees, when possible. Class members are also encouraged to develop a community service project as a way to put their skills into practice. Class projects have provided many services to benefit the community over the years. Class participants are encouraged to put their skills into practice in their business, personal and community environments. Class members are provided with individual coaching and feedback as needed.

If you are interested in participating in the program, contact me at: arnoldo.mata@hotmail.com.

The Truth Is Not Your Friend, Period.

No, the truth is not your friend. It’s not anyone’s friend. It has no friends. It does not care about you. The truth is independent of you. You can try to twist it but you can only twist your interpretation of truth, not truth itself.

There may seem times like truth is your friend. However, it just means that you and truth seem to be running in the same direction at that moment. Truth will move on regardless of where you are going.

Let me give you an analogy.

When you go through the cafeteria, it’s all food. Some tastes better than others. Some are more nutritious than others. Some you like more than others. Some are your favorites while you may detest others. But, they’re all food. You obviously don’t take one of everything.

Truth is like the cafeteria. There’s a lot of pieces of truth all over the place. But, you don’t like every piece of truth. You have certain beliefs and some pieces of truth conflict with your beliefs. You likely skip over those truths when you discuss your beliefs. You want to argue a certain point of view but some pieces of truth conflict with that point of view. You don’t include those truths when you make your presentation.

As much as we say we love the truth, we only love the truth that loves us back or at least is willing to take a selfie with us at that moment. We don’t love the complete truth. We love the truth that helps us. We don’t love the truth that hurts us, makes us squirm, makes us look weak, makes us look dumb or makes us question ourselves.

Truth is not your friend.

Control the agenda, control the results

There is a story about a legendary committee chair in the U.S. House of Representative.

He was having trouble with a member of the opposing party on the Committee. The junior member kept trying to take charge of meetings and voiced objections whenever possible. There was one particularly contentious piece of legislation that the junior member was trying to commandeer. He had drafted his own version over the committee’s original version. The two bills were almost diametrically opposed. Whichever version was used as a framework would largely determine the shape of the final bill.

Having served as chairman for a number of years, he had learned quite a bit about the rules that govern the institution. The Chairman seemed to be offering an olive branch to the junior member by starting the discussion by moving to use the junior member’s bill as the framework. The junior member was flattered to no end and seemed to think that he had worn the old chairman down. Of course, the junior member seconded the motion. When the vote came, the motion failed, as the Chairman knew it would. As a result, the committee was forced to use the original version as a framework as per House rules.

In controlling the agenda, the Chairman then controlled the discussion. That’s the lesson here. When you control the agenda, you control the discussion. That means that you also control the decisions and results to some extent.

Whenever possible, you need to have input in the agenda for any important discussion. It is a way of asserting some control even when you don’t have much control.

Lessons Learned From Female Bosses

With respect for International Women’s Day, I reflect on my experiences with female bosses. In my 40+ years of work, I have had five female bosses. They were all good supervisors, two were excellent. Looking back over all of my supervisors, I think they were overall better than the male supervisors.

I answered to a female on my very first major professional position. She was the mayor; I was the city administrator. She was a long-time community activist and businessperson before she was mayor. She listened thoughtfully before saying something important. She got me over some hurdles and helped me move on when it was time for me to seek other opportunities. It was that thoughtful pause that I learned from her. It has paid off tremendously.

The second female boss was a perfectionist. I am not. But, I learned to be one, at least with respect to my work. It was frustrating at time. However, once I adapted to her level of professionalism, we got along great. We were in sync in many ways once I came up to her speed.

The third female boss supervised a team of about 10 females and one male, me. When she interviewed me, she told me some rules she expected everyone to follow: no gossiping; if she found out that two or more workers were in some conflict, she would step in immediately to settle the problem; priorities and expectations would always be made clear; and everyone was a professional and responsible for their own success and failures, no blame pointing. She had structure in her work environment. It was a friendly place. She made it easy for everyone to get along.

The fourth female boss was a quiet, straightforward person. She provided a light management touch. She gave me deadlines and clear instructions. She let me do my work without too much supervision. At first, it was hard to adjust because I was used to other supervisors who would constantly check on my progress. I almost wanted to give her weekly updates because that’s what I was used to. She would ask me for details at specified dates, never sooner unless the deadline had to be moved up. In a way, because he she did not check up on me, I was usually ahead of schedule. She encouraged me to go outside the bounds of the normal writing style because we needed to stand out. She took off the chains.

The fifth female boss was new to the field. She was trying to get up to speed and had quite a lot to learn. Not knowing some of the what, how and why of our work, she asked for some things that likely made sense in her previous field but not in this field. I had to tell her no on two occasions. Another worker was shocked that I was contradicting the boss. Of course, I did it diplomatically. I did this via email within a small group, so it was not in public. My response to the coworker was that she deserved my best work and my best advice, not just a yes person. Otherwise, I would be doing her a great disservice, especially considering that she was new to the job. She took the comments well and adapted her viewpoint over time.

I have never had a bad female boss. I have done well under their supervision. Thanks.

The Worst That Could Happen

Before I get to the issue of the headline, I wanted to talk about zoning.

When I served on the local planning and zoning committee, we would regularly get requests for a change of zone from residential to commercial. Generally, it went like this. A person would have a home-based business, like say a hair stylist or a baker. These were not high traffic business and did not bother the neighbors, who likely knew about the business. As they wanted to attract more customers, they might want to put up large signs and maybe designated parking spaces on their property, which would not be allowed under a home business designation. In other cases, a home owner on a now-high traffic street was interested in opening a new business.

In asking for a change of zone, they wanted to get some of the benefits and rights of having a business zone designation. As a planning and zoning board, we had to balance the interests and rights of the property owner and their neighbors who oppose the change. Those other people had purchased houses in that neighborhood with the clear expectation that it was always going to be a residential area.

Our counter offer was a conditional use permit. This was a little more accommodating than a home-based business but not as expansive as a change of zone. The conditional use permit would allow for the installation of small signs and very limited parking. It would not allow new construction or expansion of the business. Also, if the business was ever closed or sold or if the property was sold, the permit would expire.

The change of zone would be permanent. Also, the change to commercial/retail would allow new construction and expansion. The types of businesses that might come in would be almost unlimited, with the exception of some industrial-type businesses. Our concern over the zoning change was that we had to imagine the best and worst that could happen. While the owner might swear on a stack of Bibles that the property would always be a small hair salon, there was no way to control it once the zoning change is granted. It might be a very posh hair salon, or it could be a strip joint.

I will return to that phrase, “worst that could happen.”

Now, let’s turn to the transgender bathroom controversy. I assume you are familiar with background, so I won’t go into detail on that. However, I want to focus on the two competing interests. On the one side, there is a person who believes that he/she is of a specific gender, one which they were not born into (some having made the physical change and others not yet). Here, I take them at their word that they are sincere in their statements. On the other side, there are people who fear that someone will use that to enter a bathroom of the opposite gender to commit a sexual assault. Again, I take them at their word that they are sincere in their statements.

Like case of the change of zone request, we have to ask how to balance the interests and rights of the two opposing parties. Where do one person’s rights start and other’s end? The essential argument that the opponents take is “the worst that could happen.”

Now, I want to look at a different conflict. There have been several cases of people who have refused to provide services to same-sex wedding events, including a florist and a baker. On the one side, the gay couples have charged discrimination. On the other side, the vendors have stood by their religious beliefs, saying that they cannot support same-sex marriage through their services.

Again, we have to ask, what is the worst that could happen? If you allow one person to claim their religious beliefs demand that they not take certain actions, how far can that go? Can an African American restaurant owner claim that they cannot hire or serve Anglos in their restaurant because it goes against their religious beliefs or the other way around? Remember, it was not that long ago that a nationally known Christian university (a Christian university!) had as one of its policies that white and African American students could not date.

A friend, also Hispanic, recently told me of an incident that occurred to them while on vacation out of state. They went to a restaurant where they were immediately told that the restaurant was out of food. Completely out of food. They were told to leave. Stunned, they left and sat in their car. They waited until another group entered, this time Anglo. They were greeted, seated and served coffee. When he re-entered to complain, the waitress said they only had coffee and that was what the group had asked for. They had no food at all. Please leave. The event was so upsetting that they did not think to file a complaint. What about the customers who witnessed the incident? Why didn’t they stand up to the owner? Would they corroborate their experience? They wondered if they were at some risk (he was with wife and kids) if they complained to the police or other authorities if the restaurant, with a full house of customers, could so blatantly discriminate. Could that restaurant owner claim religious beliefs as a defense?

When you pare down the cases of the transgender student and the baker, they have some essential characteristics in common. The central point is the conflict between the rights of the individual versus the rights of the larger group. The hardest part is trying to peer into the heart of the people involved. Does the transgender student really, truly believe that they are of a different gender than the one they were born into or is it just a phase or whim? Do the people on the other side of that issue really fear sexual assault or other offensive acts or is it just discomfort at sharing the bathroom with a transgender person? Does the baker truly believe that his religion would forbid selling something that would be used in a same-sex wedding or is it just his own personal revulsion at gay marriage?

The “worst that could happen” also goes the other way. What is the worst that can happen if we allow the isolation/separation of transgender people? How far would we carry that? In trying to enforce a birth-certificate-gender-bathroom law, would we have to go as far as issuing some type of ID or physical marking (remember the Star of David Jews had to wear in Nazi Germany?) so that people could easily identify whether someone walking into a bathroom had the appropriate gender at birth? Would we have electronic cards to swipe before going into a bathroom? Would we go to a form of separate by equal?

If a baker were forced to comply with the anti-discrimination laws and make a cake for a same-sex wedding, how far would we take it? If a church/religion has an anti-same-sex marriage, would that be considered discrimination? Would we put that preacher in jail for promoting that view point? Would we ban sermons against same-sex marriage?

The alternative to this thinking is “the best that could happen.” I don’t expect people to start thinking that way. We seem to be more driven by fear than the potential in people. I think that is just human, not just American.

I don’t have an answer for this conundrum. I just know that looking at the worst could happen is not the answer.

Being Leader of the Free World

As most people understand, leadership is not a function of titles. It is a function of relationships. Just because you have the title does not automatically make you the leader. You become the leader when you develop a strong sense of trust with those around you to the point that they are willing to follow you.

Emerging from World War II as the most powerful country in the world, the United States was automatically seen as a key figure on virtually any international issue. The President, in turn, was seen as the leader of those “free” countries that opposed Communism across the world. The focus of Leader of the Free World was seen as battling Communism in all its forms across the world. It was easy to see which side a country was on.

In a post-Cold War world (after the disintegration of the USSR), the term has become more nebulous and thrown around more easily. Many people use the term as if the President of the United States automatically leads on international issues across the world, regardless of which other countries are involved. After the breakup of the USSR, the US certainly took the leading role in world affairs.

The reality of being the Leader of the Free World is that, unlike being elected President, you don’t automatically have any real powers that go with that title. You have to earn that title. The last time we saw the President of the United States forcefully act as leader of the free world was during the first Gulf War against Iraq. In that case, President George H. W. Bush (Bush 41) managed to build an international coalition to intervene in Iraq’s attack against other countries. He made the case and convinced other countries to follow his his lead.

The second Iraq War led by President George W. Bush (Bus 43) was not quite as wide an international coalition, with Bush 43 not being able to get very many world leaders to follow his lead.

In Syria, President Barack Obama, while apparently authorizing a number of secretive mission and support for some of the rebels with money and training, failed to stand up to Russia’s much stronger role and presence in the conflict. The long series of meetings and conferences surrounding the conflict failed to produce any of meaningful resolution. In this case, Obama failed to lead the free world. He failed to step up when it was needed. He let Russia take the lead by not doing so.

Coming in as he did with literally the world’s hopes thrust on his shoulders, Barak Obama was tentatively given the title because he had talked so eloquently about a new world peace. He slowly lost that permission. Coming in as he did with harsh rhetoric and threats and deference to Putin, Donald Trump was effectively denied even the consideration of the title.

With the seeming decline of Communism after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the phrase “Free World” seemed to become less relevant. Then, as tensions across the globe seemed to increase across so many different currents, testing traditional alliances and interests, the title of Leader of the Free World becomes harder to define. During the Cold War, it was easy to point out which countries were “free” and which were not. But now, given the rise of jihadist terrorism and outright war, drug cartels’ infiltration of some governments across the world, and now the resurrection of the USSR, the importance of the title is even more important because of the complexity of what we might now consider “the free world.”

As Vladimir Putin took control of Russia, he has steadily pushed Russia back into world affairs and has forcefully vied against the United States and other “free” countries for dominance in world affairs as he seeks to rebuild the USSR and take back some of the states that broke away from the USSR. He is on a path of conquest. There can be little doubt about that.

Considering all of that change within the last 10 years, the Leader of the Free World becomes even more important. Being Leader of the Free world is harder than being President of the US because you have look far, far beyond the next election, beyond your own party, beyond your own country and think of the world. It is like looking beyond your family and doing for the stranger, even at the expense of your family. It is a hard thing to do. This, I think, is the biggest challenge for US Presidents, looking beyond his own base.

Being Leader of the Free World takes developing strong, effective relationships with other world leaders. They didn’t vote for the President of the US and they can’t be ordered around. They can only willingly follow, demur or defy the President of the United States. There may certainly be consequences for it, but they can’t just be ordered around the way the President can order some things be done within the country.

The title of Leader of the Free World is one that cannot be voted on, forcefully taken or demanded. It can only be given willingly by other leaders who are convinced of the rightness of the person and their cause. It can be withdrawn just as easily. This adds to the fragility of the title.

True leaders, including Presidents, don’t rely on the title to carry them. They truly understand that they must develop that relationship – that trust – with the people they seek to lead, whether it’s their countrymen or other world leaders. From a simple two-person venture to Leader of the Free World, the fundamentals of leadership will always remain. Leadership is not a function of titles; it is a function of relationships.

 

The Problem With Tracing Your Ancestors

I don’t have a problem with you tracing your ancestors. If that’s important to you, then you should certainly do it. Many people want to find out “where they came from.” It’s not so important to me.

One of my relatives is working hard trying to trace the Mata family as far back as she can. That’s part of the problem: tracing your family based on your father’s last name. That’s what most people do. They go based on the father’s last name and go back from there. Rarely do people trace backward based on both parents.

As the chart below points out, if I trace my family, as my relative has done, on my last name, I’d be leaving out quite a lot of my ancestors. So far, we’ve only gotten back to the great-great-grandparents, only back to the beginning of the last century, not really very far.

However, really, I’ve only looked at four of my ancestors out of 30. So, I’m the result of the mixture of 30 ancestors, not just the four with the last name “Mata.” If I only look at those four, I’m ignoring the other 26 people who had to come along at the right time to lead to me. The truth is that I’m only 2/15 Mata. The rest is something else, including Lara, my mother’s family.

As I said, this is only going back four generations, about 100 years. Go back two hundred years, and I have 254 ancestors. If you can trace yourself back to one of the American Founding Fathers, then you’ve got over 1,000 ancestors. Go back to the Mayflower, and you’ve got more than 65,500 ancestors. If you can tracer your family back to Christopher Columbus (or his sailors), then you have more than ONE MILLION ancestors.

This, of course, does not take into account all the ne’er do wells, scoundrels, outlaws, drunks, step-children, illegitimate children and adopted children thrown in there among the very many dark secrets of family trees.

Also, this only refers to my direct ancestors. It does not take into account all the other children, brothers, sisters, cousins, etc. of each of my direct ancestors. I’ve got thousands of relatives even with the last hundred years.

Given these numbers, you can understand how it seems a stretch to say that I descended from the Duke of Whatever somewhere in Europe if that’s just one of my more than ONE MILLION ancestors. The reality is that I am less than 1/1,000,000^th Duke.

Hardly seems worth putting on my resume now.

Expropriating Other People’s Grief, Pain

---

I had a heated discussion with a friend of mine sometime during the 1980s over the reported cases of rape used as a weapon of war during some of the Central American conflicts. It is a horrible, brutal thing to do. No one argues that point. The truth is that rape has been an element of many wars throughout the world. What I questioned was the idea that this was used as part of the political discussion here in the U.S. about which side to support.

My question was: do you really think it matters to the woman why she is being raped? Is a rape as a part of war any more horrible than a rape in another part of the world? Why are people outraged over rape in that situation but do not notice incidents of rape in our own communities?

We did not come to any agreement on our conversation.

This came to mind because of an incident that happened in July of last year when an illegal immigrant killed a woman in San Francisco. This came up again during a news story about recent immigrant round ups.

In one of the interviews, someone was defending the deportations by using this case. They seemed outraged that an illegal immigrant had committed this horrible crime. Yes, it was horrible. Murder is horrible. No one argues that. It was and continues to be painful for her family.

They kept coming back to the point that really bothered them: this was done by an illegal immigrant. According to them, the real tragedy was that this young woman’s life was ended by an illegal immigrant. It seemed, to me, that their real outrage was not the murder itself but that it was committed by an illegal immigrant.

I thought to myself: would their rage be any less if the murder was committed by someone who could trace their lineage back to the Mayflower? Would it have drawn any attention at all? Would the same people have been outraged?

In the case of the war rapes and this murder, it seems that the larger outrage seems to be over who committed the crimes rather than the crimes themselves. Before the larger debate on illegal immigration, would this young woman’s death attract attention beyond her family and San Francisco?

Her family is understandably bitter and angry and has filed a lawsuit against various government bodies. All this is within their rights, and no one begrudges their desire for accountability.

Anyone’s death has its own bitterness and grief associated with it. However, our political outrage appropriates someone else’s pain and grief for our own purposes. It demeans the life and death of the person.

I offer a test about how much someone (especially in the media and politics) cares about the death of any given person. I call it Schrodinger’s Death, a play on the better known Schrodinger’s Cat thought experiment. You are in a room. You learn that someone in the next room has died. That’s all you know. You know nothing of the circumstances. All you know is that a person has died. You don’t know the circumstances, the cause, or the age-gender-ethnicity-wealth-etc. of the person. If someone else caused the death, likewise, you don’t know anything about them. You don’t know if it was an accident or purposeful. Are you outraged? Are you overcome with grief? Are you in pain? Are you outraged?

I would venture to say that most people, absent all that information, would likely not even react to the death. In essence, we would not care. Our rage is not ignited until we know all of that.

This has been highlighted by the recent immigration debate fueled during the 2016 Presidential election. However, it goes back farther than that.

Nancy Grace and the TV network crime documentaries (Dateline, 48 Hours, 20/20, etc.) really started the modern version of this outrage. Grace was strongly criticized for shining the national spotlight on the cases of missing and murdered young, white women and children. Likewise, the television shows have focused largely on white victims. The families of many missing African American women petitioned Grace to focus on their missing daughters and mothers. Grace turned a deaf ear until the network forced her to give lip service to a few African American women in a limited number of episodes before returning the focus on young, white women.

Grace was always the strident avenger, raining down vehement attacks on the perpetrators and the bumbling police and investigators. She stoked the outrage and hate against such criminals from across the country. In essence, she expropriated the families’ pain and grief for her own purposes. I use “expropriated” because Grace truly took over the families’ grief in the same way that governments take over land and properties from people for their own purposes.

Where was the pain and grief for all those minority women? All we heard was silence.

We should give each death it due grief and respect, but it is inhuman to use it for our own political purposes. Our political, media and thought leaders should condemn such expropriation of death and grief.