Audio Tidbits

A few years ago, I was sitting at the negotiation table with the staff negotiator for the UAW who was representing most of the staff of the human services agency I directed. We both knew where the final agreement would settle within a fairly narrow range, so the negotiation was somewhere between proforma at one end and details that didn't matter all that much one way or another at the other end. As expected, the union made some proposals that we both knew weren't going to be accepted and a few that were both reasonable and acceptable. The negotiation was to sort out those details and issues. We both knew that labor and management can have big issues at times but also knew that this was not one of those times; or so I thought.

In this round of negotiations, the agency would have been fine continuing the current contract but was quite willing to sweeten the deal some. Here is the problem. The UAW negotiator made the first offer from the union that he knew, and I knew would not be accepted. The agency then made its first counter offer that I knew, and he knew would not be accepted. We were setting the outside limits within which the negotiation was expected to focus.

To my surprise, the UAW negotiator immediately brought out his only real weapon. Instead of making a modified offer, he said that they would take an immediate strike vote if their first offer wasn't accepted in full. What do you think my response should have been?

I admit that the temptation to play his version of hard ball was nearly overwhelming. Although I was far from speechless, the range of possible responses was flowing past so rapidly that I was temporarily dumbfounded. I finally said, "I doubt if that would be a very good outcome for either of us."

His response was even more surprising than his starting the negotiation by refusing to negotiate. They would not negotiate. Either they got everything they wanted, or they would strike. To my suggestion that striking would not be a good outcome for either of us, he said, "I don't care. I just don't care what you think about the outcome."

It may not be obvious that this junction was in reality a serious test of the value of good manners, but it most assuredly was. Let's pursue what may at first seem to be an irrelevant tangent. I will come back on point a little later.

P J O'Rourke thought, "Good manners can replace morals. It may be years before anyone knows if what you are doing is right. But if what you are doing is nice, it will be immediately evident."

The idea seems to be that good manners can and often do cover up the proverbial multitude of sins. As Arthur Schopenhauer put it, "Politeness is to human nature what warmth is to wax." It may quickly distort or otherwise transform reality. What seems sincere may merely be the latest example of Abel Stevens' observation, "Politeness is the art of choosing among one's real thoughts." The point is that in an effort to "be nice," candor can easily take a backseat to what Emily Post described as "a sensitive awareness of the feelings of others." The desire not to upset or offend takes priority over the responsibility to be honest and straightforward.

Of course, W Somerset Maugham did say, "I don't think you want too much sincerity in society. It would be like an iron girder in a house of cards." And Lord Halifax said, "A man that should call everything by its right name would hardly pass the streets without being knocked down as a common enemy." The conclusion follows that there is an appropriate, middle ground between total honesty and bad manners. One should find that balance between excessive rudeness and being unnecessarily impolite on the one hand and knavery or excessive dishonesty on the other.

Are you tempted to agree with this argument? If so, you are probably aligning with the polite majority of people who behave as if the choice is between candor and insensitive rudeness. When it comes time to choose,

For the past few posts, our focus has been on the southern border with Mexico. You may think that the kerfuffle is all about border security, but that interpretation doesn't hold up very well. Both President Trump and the opposition publicly agree that enhanced border security is important and would be a worthy outcome. So, what is the issue?

Is it the cost? Probably not. Both sides agree that appropriating funds for enhanced border security is necessary. Yes, they are apart on how much funding, but the difference is only thirty seconds or so of the total cost of operating the Federal government. That doesn't seem like enough difference to justify major disruption in the lives of nearly a million Federal workers and related non-government employment, along with the disruption in government services and responsibilities. The negative effect of the stalemate is just too far out of proportion to the funding gap.

In months past, President Trump proclaimed that the cost was neither an issue nor going to be an issue. Mexico would be paying for the needed enhanced security. Now, that pipedream has faded, and both sides agree that it will be paid for by our Federal government. Even so, the cost is not the cause of the kerfuffle.

Both sides appear to be digging in over a wall versus no wall. It also seems unlikely that this is at the heart of the impasse. The two-thousand-mile border, (the distance from Chicago to Los Angeles,) likely needs a wall or at least a better fence along some stretches but building a wall that stretches uninterrupted from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico is likely not even possible. At least part of it would need to be secured with electronic detection and drones. Even were it possible, building the wall would probably take many years. It would not enhance security much for quite some time.

President Trump is saying that he will close the border with Mexico if he doesn't get funding for his wall. It's not at all clear what that would accomplish. It would prevent legal entry across that border but wouldn't do much to stop illegal entry. Whatever the current security risk is that requires enhanced security would not be appreciably reduced by closing the border. It would definitely harm the law-abiding adults and children who hope to enter the United States but would do little to stop the illegal influx of criminals and hooligans.

Perhaps most people think the politicians should sit down together and work out a deal. There is probably a reasonable compromise in there somewhere between all wall and no wall. There is likely a solution that is both practical and possible. The political bridge burning is a serious escalation of the King-of-the-Hill game the politicians are playing with the lives and futures of far too many innocent people on both sides of the border.

There is some advice about bridge burning that both President Trump and the opposition would do well to seriously take to heart.

Jonathan Kozol advised, "Pick battles big enough to matter, small enough to win."

In the realm of life's little lessons, this seems axiomatic. The problem is that many of the battles that are big enough to matter aren't small enough to win; and those that are small enough to win tend not to matter. The challenge is in knowing when to fight and when to walk away. Kozol's advice is to fight if the outcome matters and you can win, otherwise walk away. Although this is certainly a practical approach to self-preservation, it's also a clear cop out. There are battles that matter way too much to avoid, even though winning is far from certain.

The more important lesson may be in David Russell's observation, "The hardest thing to learn in life is which bridge to cross and which to burn." Life is full of conflicts and tensions, battles large and small, bridges to cross and bridges to burn. Life is a journey; and usually, when it isn't working out, you can change direction, back up and start again,

It seems as if there was once a time when the right and good, the moral and just were guiding principles for the United States. It may be that it was never as true as it appeared, but at least it seemed as if it were truer than not. That may be little more than wishful nostalgia, more fantasy than reality. Even so, it's easy to consider the daily news and conclude that morality and ethics have nothing to do with how decisions are made, how resources are distributed, how the public's business is conducted.

Let's play a little mind game. It's sort of like playing musical chairs. The population of all of Central America is only slightly more than the population of California: about forty million. Let's suppose that people concluded that California is no longer a fit place to stay and raise a family. Staying is just not possible. Let's further assume that the only reasonable decision is to close California. The migration into the rest of the United States would be extremely disruptive for a while; but if we look ahead five years, the population of California would be absorbed, and life would go on.

Okay, closing all of California may be a bit excessive. Let's suppose that It's only necessary to close Berkeley. Now we only need to assimilate about one hundred and twenty thousand people. That sounds a lot more manageable. It may be that none of them has to actually leave California.

Sure, we're back to discussing the border with Mexico. That's the border that is about the same distance as it is from Chicago to Los Angeles. President Trump is threatening to close the border, letting no one into the United States by way of that border. His only announced goal that I have heard is to prevent an influx of criminals and hooligans. But here is the problem with that. The current border policy is probably reducing but not eliminating the influx of criminals and hooligans. That would be a good thing were it not for the reality that it is also preventing thousands of law-abiding adults and children from peacefully entering the United States.

Just as the rest of California does not want Berkeley's criminals and hooligans, we don't want those from Central America. But just as accommodation would be made for Berkeley's law-abiding adults and children when Berkeley is closed, most of the people fleeing from Central America could be accommodated with the aid of appropriate Federal policy and assistance. It may actually be less costly and certainly would be more humane to help them than it is to keep them out.

That brings us back to right and wrong, just and unjust, moral and immoral. What should our Federal government be doing about the hope of thousands of people from Central America to leave their homes and come to the United States? It is certainly a security question. It is certainly an economic question. Let's hope that our government understands that it is also a moral question, a question of our collective ethics.

What does your conscience tell you about what our collective position should be? What is the right thing to do?

Elvis Presley had a thought to focus us. "When your intelligence don't tell you something ain't right, your conscience gives you a tap on the shoulder and says ‘Hold on.' If it don't, you're a snake."

As one might expect, Carl Jung expressed Presley's folk wisdom in somewhat more formal language; but the idea is the same, "Through pride we are ever deceiving ourselves. But deep down below the surface of the average conscience a still, small voice says to us, 'Something is out of tune.'" Christopher Reeve also heard that inner voice, "I think we all have a little voice inside us that will guide us. It may be God, I don't know. But I think that if we shut out all the noise and clutter from our lives and listen to that voice, it will tell us the right thing to do."

The recurring belief is that the voice of conscience is ever-present and far less fallible than the voice of reason. For example,

You likely heard that the Federal government is partially shut-down. It's not like a private company shutting down part of its operation and laying off some of its employees. For those employees, it's no job, no pay. For the Federal employees who are off work for now, it's no job but you most likely get paid later.

It's not so harm-free for private contractors and all of the businesses who depend on the thousands of Federal employees to shop and buy. The point is that the partial government shut-down is causing real problems for thousands of real people.

All of those Federal employees who are off work had real jobs and provided real services that many people, businesses and organizations depend on to function. The result of the partial government shut-down is that there is major disruption that is seriously interfering with the economic and transactional life of the country. And the longer the partial shut-down continues, the more harmful the disruption.

Why is the Federal government partially shut-down? That's an easy question to answer. It's a tried-and-true negotiating strategy. President Trump wants to build a wall long enough to run from Chicago to Los Angeles but built along the border with Mexico. The final cost of his wall would likely be ten million dollars a mile, but a less expensive wall might be acceptable. Maybe two and a half million dollars a mile would work for him. We can call that solution 1.

The opposition will not agree to the wall but may be fine with a technological barrier that is yet to be clearly explained. We don't know how much that type of barrier would cost but it would presumably be less than two and a half million dollars a mile. We can call that solution 2.

As we see, both sides agree that some type of enhanced barrier should be put in place. The Federal government is shut down because the two sides can't agree about the type of barrier and how much it should cost. There is no disagreement about the need for an enhanced barrier nor that it will be expensive. How expensive? It will cost about as much as it costs to fund the Federal government for thirty seconds. President Trump wants about forty-five seconds and the opposition is offering only fifteen. The Federal government is partially shut-down over about thirty seconds of disputed funding.

It's pretty clear that the partial Federal government shut-down is not actually about funding. It seems most unlikely that either side would take such drastic action over thirty seconds of government funding. The sticking point is most likely only about the type of enhanced barrier to be put in place. This despite the reality that there is no assurance that either President Trumps wall or the opposition's electronics and drones will totally fortify the border. Either will likely reduce the number of criminals and hoodlums illegally crossing the border but neither will completely stop their passage.

Let's consider this. It seems quite unlikely that either President Trump or the opposition are experts on border security. They both want good border security but thinking that they know how to best achieve it is unrealistic. Alternatively, there are certainly people who are experts. Those experts are the best source of advice and guidance. It does not seem unreasonable to assume that they would recommend some mix of security measures along the two-thousand-mile border. It is fair to conclude that neither a wall nor advanced technology alone is the best solution, and neither will completely stop the influx of criminals and hooligans.

Here is what may be the surprising conclusion. The federal government is not partially shut-down over either the cost of enhanced security or over the type of security needed. It is partially shut-down over both sides digging in and holding their ground by insisting that it is either their way or no way. There isn't a way for both sides to save face. The negotiation has reduced to a zero-sum game.

I have been trying to avoid spending any time thinking about politics, economics and the current state of things in the United States. Despite my sincere effort, I keep drifting back into the morass of commentators and politicians. It makes me wonder about how any of us can distinguish the true from the fake, the actual from snake oil.

My thought process seems to be more than random but less than objective. I am somehow pulled and pushed in ways that are confusing and hard to track. The border with Mexico is a prime example. Is it merely a boundary between two countries, the door to opportunity for many of our southern neighbors, the dividing line between us and them or the entry portal for criminals and hooligans? My rational self thinks the border is a mix of all of these. The political jousting tends to focus on the criminals and hooligans, of which there are certainly some. Nearly everyone agrees that keeping them out is a very good idea. We definitely do not want more criminals and hooligans to add to the home-grown variety we already have.

According to the Google guy, the US Mexico border is just short of two thousand miles. It's about the same as the distance from Cleveland in Ohio to Las Vegas in Nevada; or about the same as from Chicago to Los Angeles. With that perspective, imagine building and maintaining a thirty-foot-high wall or a shorter fence for the full two thousand miles. Additionally, you need to make sure no one breaches the barrier.

President Trump and those on Team Trump tell us that the only way to keep the criminals and hooligans out is to build and maintain the two-thousand-mile wall. Our fear of the invading criminals and hooligans should be a sufficient motivation to build it now. The opposition team tells us that there are better and less expensive ways of keeping the criminals and hooligans out, although so far, I haven't heard much about what those better and less expensive ways are. They seem to have something to do with electronics and drones.

My rational self tells me that either approach would probably work equally well. Either the old-style wall or the new-style technology would likely stop most but not all of the illegal border crossing. Either would be particularly effective at stopping children and families. The real issue is how well either would be at stopping criminals and hooligans. I suspect either approach would slow down the influx of criminals and hooligans but many if not most determined criminals and hooligans would be up to the challenge of either type of barrier. I doubt that either approach would actually reduce the number of criminals and hooligans all that much who get from there to here. Even so, either approach would likely reduce the number of good people looking for a better life who make the passage.

There is another confusing element in all of this. How many people currently cross the border illegally each year? It matters since that is the number that either the President's wall or the oppositions technology is expected to reduce. I haven't heard even an estimate of how many. Further, I haven't heard how much reduction we should expect using either people stopping approach. Focusing specifically on criminals and hooligans, how many bad people illegally cross the border each year and how much will that number reduce by way of the wall or advanced technology?

For the business people among us, let's think about this. the current border security has been working fairly well for quite some time. Most but certainly not all illegal border crossing is already being prevented. Without any border security, let's say that the number of criminals and hooligans crossing the border illegally would be X. With the current security Y criminals and hooligans are prevented from crossing illegally. The number still crossing is then X minus Y criminals and hooligans. Let's call that Z criminals and hooligans. The value of the wall or the technology is thus how much reduction the...

Your mental health matters. It starts with being nice to yourself. Listen and hear how it is done.

There's not much else to say. This one is for listening. Press play and relax.

It seems fitting to initiate (compliments of www.QuoteGarden.com - edited for audio format) the conclusion of our Christmas wisdom with the thoughts of an anonymous philosopher who said, The message of Christmas is that the visible material world is bound to the invisible spiritual world.

Robert Lynd, who is admittedly not a philosopher said, Were I a philosopher, I should write a philosophy of toys, showing that nothing else in life need be taken seriously, and that Christmas Day in the company of children is one of the few occasions on which men become entirely alive.

Pope John 23rd added, Mankind is a great, an immense family. This is proved by what we feel in our hearts at Christmas.

Carolyn Wells is a little more down to Earth with her perspective on gifts, I love the Christmas-tide, and yet, I notice this, each year I live; I always like the gifts I get, But how I love the gifts I give!

She followed up on her wisdom with, 'Tis blessed to bestow, and yet, Could we bestow the gifts we get, And keep the ones we give away, How happy were our Christmas day!

P J O'Rourke lightens the discourse when he points out, There is a remarkable breakdown of taste and intelligence at Christmastime.  Mature, responsible grown men wear neck ties made of holly leaves and drink alcoholic beverages with raw egg yolks and cottage cheese in them.

Our 30th President, Calvin Coolidge was again a bit more philosophical, Christmas is not a time or a season but a state of mind. To cherish peace and good will, to be plenteous in mercy, is to have the real spirit of Christmas.

Robert Kirby is a little more practical, No matter how carefully you stored the lights last year, they will be snarled again this Christmas.

Deborah Whipp's nostalgia definitely has that ring of truth, Like snowflakes, my Christmas memories gather and dance — each beautiful, unique and too soon gone.

Ella Wheeler Wilcox knows about nostalgia as well, When Christmas bells are swinging above the fields of snow, we hear sweet voices ringing from lands of long ago, and etched on vacant places are half-forgotten faces of friends we used to cherish, and loves we used to know.

Vanessa Grimaldi said, Santa Claus is believing in something greater, believing in something magical; but Dennis the Menace pointed out that the real question is whether Santa Claus believes in you.

Charles Dickens said, I have always thought of Christmas time, when it has come round apart from the veneration due to its sacred name and origin, if anything belonging to it can be apart from that, as a good time; a kind, forgiving, charitable, pleasant time.

Margaret Elizabeth Sangster agrees, At Christmas-tide the open hand Scatters its bounty o'er sea and land, And none are left to grieve alone, For Love is heaven and claims its own.

Erma Bombeck gets at the heart of it, There's nothing sadder in this world than to awake Christmas morning and not be a child.

Louisa May Alcott hints at the magic, Are they Christmas fairies stealing Rows of little socks to fill? Are they angels floating hither With their message of good-will? What sweet spell are these elves weaving, As like larks they chirp and sing?

Neil deGrasse Tyson is here to make us smile, Santa knows Physics: Of all colors, Red Light penetrates fog best. That's why Benny the Blue-nosed reindeer never got the gig.

Once again, my dear people, Merry Christmas is here, With holly and mistletoe And its good will and cheer! With its joys and its heartaches, With its laughter and song, It comes as a reminder That time marches along. This reminder from Gertrude Tooley Buckingham likely gets a "Too True" from most of us.

This from Jay Leno should have perhaps been omitted but alas, The Supreme Court has ruled that they cannot have a nativity scene in Washington D C. This wasn't for any religious reasons. They couldn't find three wise men and a virgin.

Let's just hope that Julia Peterkin's rumor has not reached your home,

Let's start down the Christmas trail (again compliments of www.QuoteGarden.com - formatting omitted) with a tradition from Betsy Cañas Garmon's family. She sits with her husband in a room lit only by tree lights and wants us to remember that our blessings outnumber the lights. Happy Christmas to all.

Thomas Tusser also has advice for the season. At Christmas play and make good cheer, for Christmas comes but once a year.

Lenora Mattingly Weber is here as well to focus our perspective. Christmas is for children. But it is for grown-ups too. Even if it is a headache, a chore, and nightmare, it is a period of necessary defrosting of chill and hide-bound hearts.

Sing hey! Sing hey! For Christmas Day; Twine mistletoe and holly. For a friendship glows In winter snows, And so let's all be jolly! No one is quite sure who first said it but there's little doubt that we can all give it a hey! hey! of our own.

Gertrude Tooley Buckingham is joining in, Christmas is coming; it is almost here! With Santa and presents, good will and cheer! Now that may be even better than one of those Hey! heys!

In steps the realist to keep us from getting too carried away. Oh, for the good old days when people would stop Christmas shopping when they ran out of money. It's not surprising that no one takes credit for that one.

Fortunately, May Sarton is here to keep us on the Christmas rails, I can understand people simply fleeing the mountainous effort Christmas has become but there are always a few saving graces and finally they make up for all the bother and distress.

Dinah Maria Mulock is also here for us and for are sense of good will, It is the Christmas time: And up and down 'twixt heaven and earth, In glorious grief and solemn mirth, The shining angels climb.

Fail not to call to mind, in the course of the twenty-fifth of this month, that the Divinest Heart that ever walked the earth was born on that day; and then smile and enjoy yourselves for the rest of it; for mirth is also of Heaven's making. Thank you Leigh Hunt, that certainly brings the full spirit of Christmas into focus for us.

John Kendrick Bangs sharpens our focus as well, Whose heart doth hold the Christmas glow Hath little need of Mistletoe; Who bears a smiling grace of mien Need waste no time on wreaths of green; Whose lips have words of comfort spread Needs not the holly-berries red. His very presence scatters wide The spirit of the Christmastide.

You may think it was Charlie Brown who said, The perfect Christmas tree? All Christmas trees are perfect! but it was actually Charles N Barnard. Even so, it's so true.

Let's give Edgar Guest a chance to get in his two cents worth, At Christmas a man is at his finest towards the finish of the year; He is almost what he should be when the Christmas season's here; Then he's thinking more of others than he's thought the months before, And the laughter of his children is a joy worth toiling for. He is less a selfish creature than at any other time; When the Christmas spirit rules him he comes close to the sublime.

Woops, that pesky author unknown is butting in again with another dose of reality, Christmas is the season when you buy this year's gifts with next year's money.

Eric Sevareid puts us back on track though, As long as we know in our hearts what Christmas ought to be, Christmas is.

Bob Hope expands on the point, When we recall Christmas past, we usually find that the simplest things — not the great occasions — give off the greatest glow of happiness.

D D Monroe is also on board with the sentiment, It is the one season of the year when we can lay aside all gnawing worry, indulge in sentiment without censure, assume the carefree faith of childhood, and just plain "have fun."  Whether they call it Yuletide, Noel, Weinachten, or Christmas, people around the earth thirst for its refreshment as the desert traveller for the oasis.

Okay Benny Hill, go ahead, we know you are itching to remind the rest of us, Roses are reddish,

Let's get started (Compliments of www.QuoteGarden.com) with Louisa May Alcott who said, Very gay they were with snow and sleigh-bells, holly-boughs, and garlands below, and Christmas sunshine in the winter sky above. All faces shone, all

voices had a cheery ring, and everybody stepped briskly on errands of good-will.

Norman Vincent Peale joined in, Christmas waves a magic wand over this world, and behold, everything is softer and more beautiful.

Carol Nelson added, Christmas is a time when you get homesick — even when you're home.

Roy L Smith was there too, He who has not Christmas in his heart will never find it under a tree.

Of course, Charles Dickens brought his unique perspective, I have always thought of Christmas time, when it has come round, as a good time; a kind, forgiving, charitable time; the only time I know of, in the long calendar of the year, when men and women seem by one consent to open their shut-up hearts freely, and to think of people below them as if they really were fellow passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys.

W J Cameron was also along with a thought for careful consideration, Christmas is the gentlest, loveliest festival of the revolving year — and yet, for all that, when it speaks, its voice has strong authority.

Burton Hillis makes us smile, The best of all gifts around any Christmas tree, the presence of a happy family all wrapped up in each other.

And along came Andy Rooney to remind us not to get in too much of a rush to clear the happy evidence, One of the most glorious messes in the world is the mess created in the living room on Christmas day. Don't clean it up too quickly.

Naturally Charles Dickens has more than one thought for the holiday, Happy, happy Christmas, that can win us back to the delusions of our childish days; that can recall to the old man the pleasures of his youth; that can transport the sailor and the traveller, thousands of miles away, back to his own fire-side and his quiet home!

Lest we forget, W J Cameron reminds us, There has been only one Christmas, the rest are anniversaries.

Thanks go to Eric Sevareid for resetting our perspective when he pointed out that, Christmas is a necessity. There has to be at least one day of the year to remind us that we're here for something else besides ourselves.

We can all agree with Laura Ingalls Wilder when she reminds us that, Our hearts grow tender with childhood memories and love of kindred, and we are better throughout the year for having, in spirit, become a child again at Christmas time.

Never worry about the size of your Christmas tree. In the eyes of children, they are all 30 feet tall. Thank you Larry Wilde, it's too true.

Washington Irving is also here to remind us, Christmas is the season for kindling the fire of hospitality in the hall, the genial flame of charity in the heart.

Peg Bracken definitely gets it. We can only hope that we do too. She said, Gifts of time and love are surely the basic ingredients of a truly merry Christmas.

Kate L Bosher said, Isn't it funny that at Christmas something in you gets so lonely for — I don't know what exactly, but it's something that you don't mind so much not having at other times.

And Marjorie Holmes knows what we get so lonely for. She said, At Christmas, all roads lead home.

It may be sad but true that Francis C Farley is correct. He said, Instead of being a time of unusual behavior, Christmas is perhaps the only time in the year when people can obey their natural impulses and express their true sentiments without feeling self-conscious and, perhaps, foolish. Christmas, in short, is about the only chance a man has to be himself.

Harlan Miller has an idea worth following up, I wish we could put up some of the Christmas spirit in jars and open a jar of it every month.

What would a collection of thoughtful thoughts be without Dave Barry. Dave said, In the old days,