Audio Tidbits

In this episode of Audio Tidbits Podcast, I am struggling to succeed, along with many others who have a goal but who are spending more time thinking about success than time succeeding. Getting down to the business of success is much harder than it seems like it should be. Please join me to see how the struggle is going.

In this episode of Audio Tidbits Podcast, I am struggling to succeed, along with many others who have a goal but who are spending more time thinking about success than time succeeding. Getting down to the business of success is much harder than it seems like it should be. Please join me to see how the struggle is going.

As the New Year starts, it's time to think about getting into it. The "it" is the Audio Tidbits Podcast. I thought it was time to change my approach to the podcast and today seemed like the perfect time to take the new path. Please listen and see what you think. I hope the new path works for you. Perhaps once we both get into it, we will wonder why I haven't been doing it that way all along. So Happy New Year and enjoy.

As the New Year starts, it's time to think about getting into it. The "it" is the Audio Tidbits Podcast. I thought it was time to change my approach to the podcast and today seemed like the perfect time to take the new path. Please listen and see what you think. I hope the new path works for you. Perhaps once we both get into it, we will wonder why I haven't been doing it that way all along. So Happy New Year and enjoy.

If you weren't invited to the party and are feeling left out, I thought I could share a brief sample of the stimulating conversation you are missing. This is what you are concerned you missed, along with the after-party hangover.

If you weren't invited to the party and are feeling left out, I thought I could share a brief sample of the stimulating conversation you are missing. This is what you are concerned you missed, along with the after-party hangover.

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,

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,

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,