Audio Tidbits

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,

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.

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...

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.

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.

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