The common journalistic technique of focusing on one individual in order to bring attention and clarity to a global, complex issue is referred to as “putting a human face on the story.” There are numerous examples, many Pulitzer Prize winners, which remind us behind every statistic there are living, breathing human beings.  Perhaps the most iconic was Nick Ut’s photograph, taken during the Vietnam War of a young, naked girl suffering from napalm burns running down a road ahead of U.S. soldiers.  Some claim the image was a factor in their own shift of sentiment away from supporting the war effort.  Something the daily U.S. and Vietnamese casualty rates could not initially do.

Sometimes we need not even see the face.  Consider Jeff Widener’s 1989 picture of “tank man,” a solitary protester standing in front of four Chinese tanks the day following the massacre of students in Tiananmen Square.  Or Spider Martin’s snapshot of a woman’s blistered feet after a day of marching in Selma, Alabama on “Bloody Sunday.”

Many people prefer not to look.  Some find the pictures more obscene than the events they chronicle.  They are shocked the media would reproduce the images.*  But that is the point.  They are designed to shock us.  Shock us out of our apathy.  Our complicity.  And out of our lack of connection to the individuals, often innocent people, captured in horrific situations and unbearable conditions.

This morning we were again exposed to one of these personal moments behind the headlines.  The Associated Press “put a human back,” actually two backs, on the narrative of the continuing and unnecessary tragedy on our Southern border.   Julia Le Duc’s photograph depicts an El Salvadoran father Oscar Ramirez and his 23-month old daughter Valeria who drowned attempting to cross the Rio Grande River, only because the family had been denied access at a border crossing to the LEGAL (yes LEGAL) procedure by which refugees can seek asylum under UNITED STATES and INTERNATIONAL LAW.

If their sacrifice in any way contributes to an easing of the suffering Donald Trump has inflicted on those who look to America with hope and promise, it makes me wonder, when Trump refers to “bad hombres” invading America, should we be more worried about the “bad hombres” in the White House?

POSTSCRIPT:  THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE EVEN UGLIER

In recent posts, I have been highly critical of both the media and the evangelical community, but coverage of the Trump administration’s actions and defense of those actions which require infants and children to live in sub-human conditions seems to have turned a few hearts, even among Donald Trump’s staunchest supports.  Yesterday, in response to the Associated Press stories about the detention center in Clint, Texas, Dr. Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, tweeted:

The reports of the conditions for migrant children at the border should shock all of our consciences. Those created in the image of God should be treated with dignity and compassion, especially those seeking refuge from violence back home. We can do better than this.

One could expect no louder clarion call from the religious right to remind Donald Trump and Mike Pence of Jesus’ teachings.  Sadly, some turned the other cheek (or should I say a deaf ear).  Among those was Jerry Falwell, Jr., president of Liberty College, who responded to Dr. Moore as follows:

Who are you @drmoore? Have you ever made a payroll? Have you ever built an organization of any type from scratch? What gives you authority to speak on any issue? I’m being serious. You’re nothing but an employee- a bureaucrat.

Maybe Falwell missed the Bible lesson when, in John 2:16, Jesus says of money changers, “Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!”

Was I surprised?  No and yes.  No, this is the same faux Christian who gives more mulligans to Trump than revelers hand out strings of beads at a Mardi Gras parade. I am, however, bewildered he could not come up with a more clever retort.  Maybe, “I’ll say it with great respect, these children are not my type.”

*NOTE: USA Today, after warning readers of the graphic nature of Le Duc’s photograph, wrote, “We believe the photo is important in telling the story of what is happening at the border.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Spoiler Alert:  If you have not yet seen Season 8 of “Game of Thrones” and plan to do so, you may want to wait before reading this post.

“Game of Thrones” has certainly generated its share of post-finale press coverage.  Unfortunately, most of it has been about viewer reaction to the resolution of the question, “Who would eventually end up sitting on the Iron Throne?”  Or the pace of storytelling in the final season.  Yesterday, I had a little fun with those issues myself.  Following my mandatory post-episode debriefing with our daughter and one more night to sleep on it, this morning I realized the creators missed an opportunity to engage the 19.3 million viewers (live and delayed streaming) in a more important debate.

In Season 8, Episode 5, the major controversy centered on Daenerys Targarian’s “take no prisoners” approach to reclaiming King’s Landing, a theme which was reinforced at the beginning of Episode 6 when Grey Worm at his Queen’s command, slashes the throats of warriors who had been captured during the battle for the city.  Her justification being the need to rid the Kingdom of anyone who had been loyal to Cersei Lannister, even if it included the murder of innocent children.  Where would anybody get such an abhorrent idea?

How about the Old Testament?  Not once, but three times in the first two books (Genesis and Exodus), God takes Dany-like revenge against populations he feels have not been loyal to his laws.  [NOTE: I only use masculine pronouns to be consistent with the biblical narrative.  Daenerys proved the desire to unleash mass destructive forces is gender neutral.]  The first time is the great flood.  I have always wondered why any deity would instruct his servant to save two of each animal species while showing no compassion or mercy for innocent children.

The second iteration is at Sodom and Gommorah, pictured here.  Look familiar?  The only difference is God did not need dragons to obliterate a city.

Perhaps the biblical story which best aligns with the death of innocent children at King’s Landing is the tenth plague in Exodus, when God takes the life of Egypt’s first-born sons to break Pharaoh’s will.  Only then are the Israelites freed from their bondage of slavery.  When Jon Snow asks Daenerys if she has seen the burnt bodies of the children, she says it was necessary to “break the wheel which enslaved them.”  Two mythological narratives which very well could have been written by the same author.

Did God snap like Daenyrus?  Was this an overreaction in the heat of the moment?  It’s hard to make that case when we find the descriptions of the plagues in Exodus 7:14 through 12:36.  And then, having had time to reflect on his own actions, in Exodus 34:7, God states that although he will lavish steadfast love for thousands,  he will, “…by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.”

“Game of Thrones” creators David Benioff and D. B. Weiss want us to believe the problem is solved through the election of a new monarch incapable of producing heirs.  As is too often the case today, those with the power to change the course of history are day traders, interested only in the next transaction.  The future is about the long game.

Having said all this, what do I believe would have been a more appropriate and meaningful conclusion to a story about power, revenge and destruction?  One that might have driven a more productive dialogue among fans of the show?  If, when Samwell Tarly presents Tyrion Lannister with the chronicle of the competition among rival houses for the Iron Throne (conveniently titled, “A Song of Ice and Fire”), Tyrion had said, “This is old history (read our “Old Testament”).  Perhaps it is time we tell a new story.  One that does not glorify death and blind obedience.  One that does not require a king or queen to tell us how to behave toward each other.  But lays that responsibility at our own feet.”  This is a dilemma every civilization from ancient times through the present has faced.

Yes, Samwell is soundly ridiculed when he suggests, “Maybe the decision about what’s best for everyone should be left to, well, everyone.”  The Seven (or Six) Kingdoms are not ready for democracy.  But a constitutional monarchy would have been a step in the right direction.  As we know, democracy is messy and takes time to accept and appreciate.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP