Jeffrey Saltzman's Blog

Enhancing Organizational Performance

The Problem with Experts

with one comment

Written by Jeffrey M. Saltzman

September 22, 2018 at 10:03 am

Sunk Costs

leave a comment »

When you wonder how those in congress can go along with increasingly undemocratic behavior that goes against everything this country has stood for, a partial explanation might be found in this piece on sunk costs.

Jeffrey Saltzman's Blog

The patient in the ICU had given instructions for no heroic life support. Heroic is of course subjective as one person’s routine might be deemed heroic by another. Never-the-less over a period of almost two weeks the measures taken would be described by most any observer as heroic. How did it happen?

It started as simply some abdominal pain. A trip to the ER revealed a small perforation in the intestine, a complication of diverticulitis. The patient was admitted, put on intravenous antibiotics and a small amount of supplemental oxygen. At first the antibiotics seemed to be working, but then the patient took a turn for the worse. An abdominal abscess was discovered, the dosage of the antibiotics being given was increased and a pathology report led to a change in the type of antibiotic being used. Again, positive signs emerged. Up to this point fairly routine healthcare.

After a…

View original post 943 more words

Written by Jeffrey M. Saltzman

August 19, 2018 at 3:16 pm

Cultural Resiliency

with one comment

It is very hard work to change a culture. Whether that culture is the essence of what defines an organization, or that culture is part of a larger society. Culture change is tough, culture is resilient and change does not come easily or simply by wishing it were so.

Let me give you an example. Many times over the years I have worked with organizations that have extraordinary high amounts of turnover. They may be hiring students, or part-timers, or people who are looking to supplement their income during certain times of the year.  Year over year, the members who make up their front-line staff can change dramatically, yet their scores on an annual employee survey can remain very stable, even when the organization is working hard to improve those scores. “How can this be?”, is a question I have been asked more than once. In one case, almost the entire front-line population had changed out, meaning virtually no one from the previous year’s survey was left, and yet the scores were within 1 point of where they were a year earlier. Management in this case, thought that all the unhappy malcontents would leave, and that, combined with their improvement efforts should improve the scores. But this is what tends to happen in organizations:

  • The policies, practices and procedures, the frustrations employees experienced in getting their work done did not change, so even as the new staff entered they experienced the same environment as the departed staff and quickly assumed the same attitudes
  • Turnover was not uniform. Those in management for instance did not exhibit the same amount of turnover, so the new employees experienced the same people, with the same behaviors that the departed staff experienced
  • One common cause of turnover is the lack of ability to achieve one’s career aspirations in your current organization, and just because the staff turns over, if you are hiring similar types of people (e.g. students, young professionals), their career aspirations will likely be, as a group, no different than the previous year’s group. The career aspirations of any one person can of course be different
  • Another cause of turnover is frustration with the effectiveness of the organization, the way the work gets done. That does not change simply because new employees enter an organization.

It is possible to achieve steady, meaningful improvement in an organization’s culture scores through hard work, consistency and continuity of effort, but when a score shifts dramatically higher or dramatically lower in a short period of time, it is not unusual to find out that there is new leadership within the organization, whether that be a department, division, business unit, company-wide…

…or at a country level.

The findings on culture change that are seen within for-profit organizations have analogs within our country and society overall, after all both are made up of people with all of their foibles, strengths and similarities. The overall culture of the USA is resilient (for better or for worse). Meaning that as immigrants come to our shores there is very little danger of large cultural shifts occurring as long as the institutions of the USA remain intact. Those democratic institutions make up the policies, practices and procedures which define and by which our society operates. Just like organizations that experience steady state cultures, (for better or for worse), over time the same factors come into play as new people have entered and will continue to enter our country, because they are exposed to and live under those institutions. Yes, you may get access to new foods that immigrants bring, or other “cosmetic factors”, but underneath it all people are people and the factors that drove my grandparents to escape the pogroms of Russia are the same factors that drive people to our shores today. A search for dignity, safety, a better life if not for themselves then for their children, have driven people to us for hundreds of years. And the drive of those people to achieve their goals is what has made this country great. Virtually none of these historical immigrants would have gotten in on their “merits” of education or wealth, but succeed they did, and succeed their children did, based on their hard work and desire to have a better life.

With our recent change in leadership, the attacks on our democracy by Russia, and the subsequent attacks on the policies, practices, and procedures by which we have prospered, we are running a grave risk that the culture inherent to our democracy, the culture that represents our “secret sauce” or “special essence” can begin to swing and be put into jeopardy.  Consider this a warning from someone who has studied organizational culture for over 30 years.

Complacency during this dark period in our history is not an option. Ellie Wiesel saw this happen in Germany and concluded, “We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must – at that moment – become the center of the universe.”

Many of the institutions which support our democracy are under attack. The traditional role and dignity of the office of the Presidency is under attack, and at the moment has largely been destroyed. The critical role of a free and unfettered press is under attack, minorities are under attack, children and families are under attack, our access to egalitarian education is under attack, our very planet is under attack which means that the future of our children and our grandchildren is under attack.

While culture is resilient, we are seeing dangerous cracks in our culture developing. Divisiveness is growing. Hate groups are newly emboldened. Fascists and anti-democratic forces are becoming stronger. Each day we move closer to becoming an autocratic kleptocracy with a fondness for dictatorial strongmen. Our traditional adversaries rejoice in our lack of leadership and in our failing strength while our allies are feeling abandoned and forlorn. The USA, even with all of its shortcomings, was the leader of the free world and a shining beacon for humanity on this planet. We have abandoned that position. It will be a long road, but we can begin the repair the damage that has been done, to ourselves and to the world. We can repair our culture and this world and use this experience to enhance our country’s future resiliency. Vote in November.

Written by Jeffrey M. Saltzman

August 14, 2018 at 7:55 pm

Here I Am

with 2 comments

When I teach leadership to MBA students, on the first day of class we have a discussion regarding the necessity of managers to be able to multitask. Most of them are under the impression that to be a good manager you need to multitask throughout the day. My statement to them is that when you multitask what you are doing is a whole bunch of things poorly, rather than one thing well. (And the data supports that conclusion). Success comes about when you do one thing well and then move onto the next one.

Imagine if a surgeon was about to cut into your heart and right at that moment decided to review a menu and order takeout for lunch. If you were conscious you would likely pass out. Imagine if you were following your platoon leader carefully through a minefield and suddenly the platoon leader decided to play Candy Crush as they were picking out the mines to avoid. That leader would not have a leg to stand on to justify that behavior.  Or imagine if you were a manager, in your office, with a staff member sitting across from you. As you gave that person information and direction on what needed to be done, you decided to respond to a few emails as you talked. Even if you got the information transfer correct, the impression you would leave with that staff member is that what you were conveying was not all that important to you.

After hearing this, one of my students who already worked as a manager, decided to turn off his cell phone and to turn off his computer screen when he had a person in his office and were giving them direction. The results were dramatic. That staff member, who usually left very punctually at 5:00pm stayed late to finish the work. When asked about it the staff member stated that since the manager turned off their cell phone and computer screen that he thought what was being conveyed was really important so he paid extra attention and stayed until the work was done. What behavior patterns do you think would add up to more productivity, having each staff member put in the extra effort to get their respective work done, or you as a manager multitasking your way through the day?

There is a big difference between being present in a conversation and being fully present in that conversation. There is a big difference between being present in any situation and being fully present in that situation. When you are fully present in a situation you convey to others that you care about what is going on and it is important to you.

Written by Jeffrey M. Saltzman

August 7, 2018 at 5:02 pm

Fear Itself…

leave a comment »

In 1933, during the darkest days of the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt in his first inaugural address delivered a solemn message to the American public.

“So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”

His concern was that the fear the American public was suffering through was paralyzing the efforts needed to emerge from the economic chasm into which we had fallen.

“In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties. They concern, thank God, only material things.” 

He asserted in that speech that the values of the American public were in fact intact and strong and where we were falling short was only on the material front. There can be a good deal of debate about that point, but he lay blame for those conditions on the bankers and money lenders for incompetence, stubbornness and for abdicating their responsibilities to society. FDR was certainly not an unblemished figure and in his speech he fell victim to the lure of scapegoating, assigning problems to others, as a way to rally the population.

“This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today.”

In his address he spoke, as he said, frankly and boldly. Today, we are again facing fear, but this time the fear has been purposely induced, it has been foisted upon the American public to gain power, to control, to bring forth behaviors that were held in check by our values. The behaviors that have been brought forth induce divisiveness and discord and attack the most vulnerable in our society as the “other”, to blame them for our problems. The discord and divisiveness in our society is cheered on, nurtured and sometimes orchestrated by our adversaries, for while they can’t stand against us as a strong democracy, as our rule of law and our democratic institutions weaken they see a path to victory over us.

The threat we are under today is the opposite of the threat America faced during the Great Depression. Economically we are strong, but morally, from a values standpoint, our government and part of our population has lost its way. It can creep up on you and each little cut can be brushed off, until it is too late and you realize you have hemorrhaged and lost a fatal amount of blood. It is time to heal our wounds and to regain our footing. Our government was of course elected by the people, in this case a minority of the population, but there are real grievances that led us to where we are and those must be address if we are to ever move forward.

What we are experiencing right now should be a wake-up call to just how fragile our democracy, any democracy is, how easy it is to imperil our freedoms, to corrupt our values and how we must safeguard them all. Democracy along with strong values, can’t be taken for granted. They must constantly be nurtured in order to survive and the public can’t give into its fears when faced with a fear inducing challenge. We have been far from perfect, but we were on the right path.

Societal culture, just like organizational culture, can enter periods where it is more fluid, more able to change. Kurt Lewin described these periods as unfreeze events. We have been in an unfreeze event and the various elements in our society have been pushing this way and that to change the culture to the point of view they desire. The risk is that the culture will refreeze into a culture that is inherently undemocratic, based on autocratic policy. That is not who we are, that is not the country the founding fathers envisioned and it must be resisted at all costs.

Those who are attracted to this autocratic orientation are a varied lot. It does no one any good to paint with a broad brush when you describe their motivations. There are those who have been speaking out but it is time, way past time, for those within our government, those with a platform and those with an understanding of just what is happening, who have been quiet to join in and speak out and to speak out frankly and boldly, for we have nothing to fear but fear itself.

Written by Jeffrey M. Saltzman

July 13, 2018 at 1:51 pm

Posted in Ethics

Authoritarianism

leave a comment »

In the aftermath of WWII there was a great deal of research interest in how the atrocities of that war could have taken place. How could regular German citizens simply follow orders to willingly participate in the Holocaust or simply look the other way and pretend they did not know it was happening? Of course, the behaviors that occurred during WWII were not isolated events in history. Humans have been very capable, both prior to and after that war, of continuing to carry out atrocities. Armenia, Rwanda, Ukraine, Greece, Cambodia, USA, Bosnia, Syria, and many others have all seen their share of death and genocidal attacks carried out by one group who first dehumanizes and then tries to exterminate the other. These are not isolated events and it is not limited to any one geography or culture. It is something dark and deep inside of the human inner core that allows these events to occur over and over. Yet, not all of us succumb and get caught up in these atrocities. Resistance can be found, even though it is often less than successful.

But what exactly are people resisting? What urges affect humanity that must be overcome to prevent a continuing string of atrocities from occurring?

One line of research examined the makeup and prevalence of the Authoritarian personality type as a possible explanation. The Authoritarian personality has “a desire for security, order, power, and status, with a desire for structured lines of authority, a conventional set of values or outlook, a demand for unquestioning obedience, and a tendency to be hostile toward or use as scapegoats individuals of minority or nontraditional groups.”

In the aftermath of WWII, in 1947, Theodor W. Adorno created the “F-Scale” or Fascism Scale.  The characteristics the F-Scale measured included: Conformity to traditional societal norms, submission to authoritarian figures, aggression to “others” who don’t fit the pattern, belief in fundamentalist religious notions, belief in superstitions, tendency towards power and toughness, a rejection of introspection, self-criticism, and tender-mindedness. The F-Scale was widely popular for a time but had some psychometric issues with reliability and faking. Since then others have created scales to measure similar characteristics with better psychometric properties. What is striking about the F-Scale from 1947, is how many of the issues you continue to hear today (similar to “these kids today”, kind of argument that happens over and over with each generation). Here are the original 30 items (http://www.anesi.com/fscale.htm) that made up the F-Scale (on a 6-point strongly agree to strongly disagree scale):

  1. Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn.
  2. A person who has bad manners, habits, and breeding can hardly expect to get along with decent people.
  3. If people would talk less and work more, everybody would be better off.
  4. The business man and the manufacturer are much more important to society than the artist and the professor.
  5. Science has its place, but there are many important things that can never be understood by the human mind.
  6. Every person should have complete faith in some supernatural power whose decisions he obeys without question.
  7. Young people sometimes get rebellious ideas, but as they grow up they ought to get over them and settle down.
  8. What this country needs most, more than laws and political programs, is a few courageous, tireless, devoted leaders in whom the people can put their faith.
  9. No sane, normal, decent person could ever think of hurting a close friend or relative.
  10. Nobody ever learned anything really important except through suffering.
  11. What the youth needs most is strict discipline, rugged determination, and the will to work and fight for family and country.
  12. An insult to our honor should always be punished.
  13. Sex crimes, such as rape and attacks on children, deserve more than mere imprisonment; such criminals ought to be publicly whipped, or worse.
  14. There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel a great love, gratitude, and respect for his parents.
  15. Most of our social problems would be solved if we could somehow get rid of the immoral, crooked, and feebleminded people.
  16. Homosexuals are hardly better than criminals and ought to be severely punished.
  17. When a person has a problem or worry, it is best for him not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things.
  18. Nowadays more and more people are prying into matters that should remain personal and private.
  19. Some people are born with an urge to jump from high places.
  20. People can be divided into two distinct classes: the weak and the strong.
  21. Some day it will probably be shown that astrology can explain a lot of things.
  22. Wars and social troubles may someday be ended by an earthquake or flood that will destroy the whole world.
  23. No weakness or difficulty can hold us back if we have enough will power.
  24. It is best to use some prewar authorities in Germany to keep order and prevent chaos. [You’ll have to pretend it is 1946 when you answer this one.]
  25. Most people don’t realize how much our lives are controlled by plots hatched in secret places
  26. Human nature being what it is, there will always be war and conflict.
  27. Familiarity breeds contempt.
  28. Nowadays when so many different kinds of people move around and mix together so much, a person has to protect himself especially carefully against catching an infection or disease from them.
  29. The wild sex life of the old Greeks and Romans was tame compared to some of the goings-on in this country, even in places where people might least expect it.
  30. The true American way of life is disappearing so fast that force may be necessary to preserve it.

If you complete the F-Scale at the link provided above, your responses will be scored and an interpretation provided. A higher score on the F-Scale was supposed to be predictive of and indicative of the person having fascist anti-democratic leanings and an attraction towards authoritarian figures and political systems. Recent work by political scientist Mathew MacWilliams, implies that somewhere between 18 to 30 percent of Americans fit the definition and that number goes higher when people feel under threat. (There is no reason to assume those numbers would be any different in other countries.) He found from a large sample of likely voters, that a tendency towards authoritarianism predicted support for Trump in the last election more reliably than other any other factors.

The question has been raised repeatedly about why certain groups such as evangelicals, or voters with low income levels would vote for and continue to support Trump, whose personal behaviors and actions are in contrast to either their stated values and whose aid-cutting, tax cuts for the wealthy agenda is so clearly against their personal self-interest or professed morals. What has been less examined is the percent of those people who are attracted to the authoritarian style of leadership or because they are feeling threatened on other fronts are willing to put up with it.

And in reference to how the morally centered religious right puts up with Trump’s atrocities, racism, misogynism, xenophobia and prejudices, a study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5(4), 432-443 by Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967) found that the average churchgoers are more prejudiced than nonchurchgoers; that people with an extrinsic (externally focused) religious orientation are significantly more prejudiced than people with an intrinsic (internally focused) religious orientation; and that people who are indiscriminately proreligious are the most prejudiced of all. Remember religious fundamentalism is often found as a marker of attractiveness to an authoritarian style of leadership.

More recent research on authoritarianism shows that it is not a single personality type, but a set of characteristics that in combination lead to a particular pattern of behavior. Using the Big-5 categorization of personality type Phillip Chen and Carl Palmer (The Prejudiced Personality, Using the Big Five to Predict Susceptibility to Stereotyping Behavior, American Politics Research, Vol 46, Issue 2, pp. 276 – 307, August 4, 2017)   found that people who scored lower on Openness to Experience (an appreciation of things like intellectual complexity, artistic expression, etc.) and higher on Conscientiousness (organization, dependability, and self-reliance) are consistent predictors of authoritarian tendencies. Ryan Perry & Chris Sibley (2012) found similar patterns in an article titled “Big-Five personality prospectively predicts Social Dominance Orientation and Right-Wing Authoritarianism. (Personality and Individual Differences. 52. 3–8. 10.1016).

People with these personality characteristics would show more of a willingness to follow an authoritarian leader, even one who is expressing clinical or sub-clinical levels of mental illness, including malevolent narcissism or the Dark Triad, a combination of the often co-morbid factors of narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism.

The incidence of the Dark Triad and its relationship to prejudice was examined by Gordon Hodson, Sarah Hogg and Cara MacInnis (Journal of Research in Personality (Volume 43, Issue 4, August 2009, Pages 686-690). They found that the Dark Triad (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy) personality traits were positively related to threat perceptions of those not part of the “in-group” and with an anti-immigrant prejudice, a desire for social dominance and right-wing authoritarianism. It is a short jump to assume that words used to describe others by those so afflicted with this illness would include streams of insults, pejoratives and ominous warnings, none of which would necessarily be based in reality.

It is a relatively new concept to use personality characteristics to predict political orientations or how someone might vote, which leaders they would follow, or their views towards differing societal activities, but Marc Hetherington and Jonathan Weiler, in their extensive research, simultaneously came to the conclusion that the polarization evident in American politics today was largely generated by authoritarian personality type people.

MacWilliams, describes authoritarians as “not supporting a lot of things that are basic to Madisonian democracy”, such as protecting minority rights, or maintaining religious freedom, they would have no issue with separating children from parents in asylum seeking families, as they respond aggressively to outsiders who are cast in the role of “other” or “enemy”. In one study of Republican voters MacWilliams found “that education, income, gender, age, ideology and religiosity had no significant bearing” on their preferred candidate. “Only two variables stood out as statistically significant: authoritarianism, with ‘fear of terrorism’ trailing as a distant second.”

All of these leaves one feeling unease that the USA is traveling down a precarious path. A path that can lead to horrors that must not be repeated and that must be completely and vigorously rejected.   We must turn from the path that has been set upon by those currently in power. How can we begin?

  • The coalition that elected Trump is a varied group. But what they seem to have in common is a tendency to find strong-man authoritarianism attractive. The percent who leans that way directly increases with their sense of threat. That sense of threat must be reduced and the inflammatory rhetoric used to increase that sense of threat must be clearly shown to be the hollow canard that it is.
  • Some of those who put us on this dangerous path did so because they have felt ignored by those in power and that their future (and the future of their children) is bleak. Coal miners, mid-west farmers, steel workers, fishermen, manufacturing workers, etc., we must not leave carcasses in our path as change comes to our society. And if nothing else our society has been in a state of constant change. We must protect and bring along those who will be most ill-affected by that change.
  • From years of research on workers it is very clear that one fundamental that everyone on this planet wants is to feel valued. We must make it clear that we value everyone, giving them a voice and letting them know that will not be forgotten, that they and their children have a positive and exciting future.
  • Respect & Dignity are also fundamental characteristics that people desire. Dignity is a relational factor. In other words, whether someone feels that are being treated with dignity is determined by how the see others being treated. If their treatment is perceived to be less they view it as undignified. If no one has electricity, I am not being treated with less dignity if I don’t have electricity. If everyone else has electricity and I don’t, my treatment is less dignified. If I don’t have clean water and others do, that is not dignified treatment. Respect is not a relational factor. I can feel disrespected regardless of how others are being treated. Everyone should be treated with Respect and Dignity.
  • We must protect the institutions that our society was built upon, the institutions which up to this point have allowed us to create the most successful human society this planet has seen so far. Checks and balances in our government must be restored. A free press must be protected. We must cherish and protect our planet as there is no planet B. We are caretakers of this world for our children and grandchild, we must pass to them a world in which they can thrive and live healthy lives. We must reassume our leadership position in the world, setting moral standards and leading in education, technology and scientific discovery. We must build bridges to others on this planet not walls to isolate ourselves. We must lead towards global success for everyone. And, the most vulnerable in our society must be protected.
  • It is time to define what we are going to be as a society, and not through fear-mongering, who we are going to protect ourselves from. We need to look forward not backwards.

This is just the start of how we begin to change the path we are on, away from the seduction that some feel towards authoritarianism. An authoritarianism which has led to unspeakable horrors time after time throughout history. It is time, more than time, to redefine ourselves in a manner that lets all of us thrive and live life to its fullest potential.

Written by Jeffrey M. Saltzman

July 1, 2018 at 4:46 pm

One

with one comment

Supposed you had an organization that made a product that was extremely valuable to society as a whole. Now suppose there was a problem with this product. The problem was during the manufacture of this product, one individual had to carry out a task, that over the space of six months was lethal to that person. In other words, one-person in the manufacturing process was going to die every six months in order for this organization to keep producing this very valuable product, this would occur even if they did the job just once. No matter what research was carried out, this manufacturing problem could not be fixed, and the price for this organization’s success was one death every six months. Should that organization continue to manufacture that product? What if the organization was ten people? In other words, every six months, in order for that organization of ten to thrive one of them had to volunteer to conduct that lethal manufacturing step so the other nine could continue to do their jobs. One-in-ten, doesn’t sound very good, does it?

What if instead of ten workers, the organization had 100,000. Every six months one of the 100,000 had to volunteer to conduct that lethal step so that the others could continue their work. What if the organization was 10,000,000? What if it was 400,000,000? At what point do the numbers make sense for it to be ok for one person to sacrifice their life every six months? Do the numbers ever make any sense, is it ever justifiable? At any of those organizational sizes that one person who dies is still just as dead, their life cut short, their ability to experience joy, love, other emotions and experiences cut short. Was it worth it to them?  What if instead of volunteering they were unaware that the job was lethal. Does that make a difference?

This dilemma has long been discussed and argued about and has appeared in books and movies. In Star Trek, The Wrath of Khan (1982), as Spock is sacrificing himself to save the ship he and Kirk have this exchange.

“Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” – Spock

“Or the one.”  – Kirk

But in the sequel in 1984, The Search for Spock, when Kirk disobeys orders and puts the ship at risk for Spock to be reborn he justifies his action by saying,

“…the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.” – Kirk

Has Kirk evolved his thinking? When the USA was founded the government was set up to be slow and ponderous, to be deliberative in it’s decision-making. The reason for that was not that the founding fathers wanted to be inefficient, but rather they wanted decisions, and their impacts, to be carefully weighed before implementation. They set up a multi-step system, with three co-equal branches of government each having their roles to play and without too much power being able to be gathered under one branch. The role of the government, as they envisioned it, was not majority rule, but rather the protection of rights for those who may not be well-represented in society or in the legislative bodies creating laws. That drove, for instance, the separation of church and state, so that no one religion could impose it’s will on others simply because they had the most number of adherents.  The needs of the one, outweigh the needs or the desires of the many. The passage in the Declaration of Independence which states that “all men are created equal” is a nod to this. Even if it is just one person who is different than all others, they are equal in the eyes of our founding fathers, each life just as valuable as any other. This of course was aspirational and in practice we have often fallen and still do fall far short of that ideal, but at least the aspiration is there and it is something we should all work towards together.

When attempts are made to deprogram members of cults or adherents to terrorist groups one method is to show that often the leadership does not behave in the manner that they state their members should be behaving. For instance, you show the leaders, who state that personal possessions are evil and should be turned over, wearing expensive watches, driving fancy cars or flying in personal jets, in other words you point out their hypocrisy. And you point it out over and over. Sometimes it works but often people are very good at accepting only the information that comports to what they already believe and reject those facts that contradict beliefs.

We as a country are currently separating children from their parents on our southern border. In some cases parents are told that the children are being taken for showers or baths and then never returned. It is a scene that is eerily and horrifically reminiscent of Nazi’s telling concentration camp victims that they were going for showers as they were led into the gas chambers. It makes my skin crawl and brings tears to my eyes. Scenes of young children crying for their parents are occurring over and over. These are the facts and they are right before our eyes.

Many of our most senior leaders today are awash in vast oceans of hypocrisy and they want the American public to believe them as they use us simply as a means for political and financial gain. Groups that traditionally proclaim themselves as “pro-family” are strangely quiet on this issue and their hypocrisy grows, as they look to cling to power and influence. This is not what the USA is supposed to be, it is not who I am. We are supposed to be protecting the vulnerable, not inflicting suffering upon them. Each and every one of the children and each and every one of their parents should be protected and they should not be separated. They are not numbers, they are not statistics, they are not pawns in some evil conception of political maneuvering. The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many and one separated child is one too many.

Written by Jeffrey M. Saltzman

June 19, 2018 at 9:04 pm

Posted in Ethics, Human Behavior

%d bloggers like this: