Background Checks and Knowing Your Neighbor

Two major things happened last week. Two brothers, twenty-six and nineteen years old, bombed the Finish Line of the Boston Marathon, and the United States Senate failed to pass expanded background checks for people wanting to buy guns.
In the case of the two bombers, who also had assault weapons and fired them at pursuing police, their neighbors and family members all said that they were good kids and had shown no signs of violent tendencies. Doesn't this sound just a little bit familiar? So many times we hear of someone committing a violent crime and find that neighbors and people who knew him or her casually thought the individual to be a pleasant quiet person. For all you know, there might be such a pleasant quiet person in your neighborhood right now. Would you want that person to be able to purchase an arsenal of firearms without a background check? The Senate would...The problem is that Senators think that it will never happen to them, and they think that the votes and contributions from the NRA are more important than the votes of the rest of us.
Last week the violence from presumably innocent people hit my home town, Boston. A campus policeman was shot to death at MIT where I went to school. The FBI had already interviewed the older brother a few years ago. They may or may not have caught his desire to purchase assault weapons if the expanded background check system had been in place. With that system, they would have at least had the chance to spot his moves. Those two brothers were not the only ones among us, perhaps in your neighborhood, who have hidden violent tendencies and reactions to circumstances. Look at all the instances of someone being fired from a job and then returning with weapons to kill former supervisors and coworkers.

Expanded background checks won't catch every potential monster, but they would definitely keep some undesirable people from purchasing weapons. Even the NRA says we need better mental health treatment and need to detect people with mental problems. If someone who has been fired is angry at his or her former supervisors and coworkers, but doesn't own a weapon, they will be delayed in acting upon their anger and will have time to cool down. That's why background checks are usually accompanied by a cooling off period. Expanded background checks won't solve all of our violence problems, but the people they save are just as valuable in the sight of God as you or I. We have laws that identify sexual predators in our neighborhoods. Why shouldn't we keep felons, potential terrorists, and people with mental problems from stockpiling weapons in our neighborhoods too?

Obama's Gay Marriage Announcement

Yesterday (May 9, 2012), President Obama stated in an interview with ABC Television that he thought gay couples with healthy long-term commitments should be allowed to get married. What may have been lost in the reporting of this comment is that he called it his personal viewpoint. What he said is not official policy of the United States, but only a personal view that undoubtedly will influence many other people to have either a more positive or more negative opinion of the President. This was a classic Damned if you do and damned if you don't moment. It did show a lot of courage, but it may turn out to have been foolhardy from the viewpoint of political success in the next election. So long as Obama didn't define his stance, it was open to interpretation by all shades of the political spectrum. By declaring his position, he enhanced his standing with half of the voting public, but alienated the other half. This would have been true even if he had declared himself as being on the other side of this thorny debate. Therefore, I have to believe that Obama's public support of gay marriage has to be a statement of his conscience rather than being a political ploy. He gains nothing from it and may very well lose a lot. Whether or not this President gets re-elected, he has shown that he will take a stance on issues that most other politicians would remain ambiguous about.

Enough! I Need a Change!

I haven't been posting regularly on this blog because I allowed myself to get involved in too many things at the same time. No matter how capable you think you are, you have to face up to not being a comic book superhero. We all have our limitations, and the key to success is to either avoid over-committing in the first place or to recognize the problem and develop a step-by-step plan for reducing your load to a manageable level. This also involves determining which of your commitments are to be eliminated or minimized.
Eliminate a commitment that is:

• Not satisfying to you, even if you accomplish it.
• Too demanding, because you could do several alternate things for less effort and/or time commitment and with a higher total reward.
• Not rewarding, in terms of either immediate compensation (may or may not be monetary) or in terms of long-term payoff through the opening-up of new opportunities.
• Goal-less. Some tasks are done, in juggling terms, for the sake of keeping the balls in the air. You don't want to keep running on the treadmill in order to stay in the same place.

What are the consequences of saying "No!" to a new or ongoing task? Sometimes you can stop doing something, and nobody will even notice. In other cases, you have to find and train somebody else to replace you, because the task must be done by someone. Occasionally, you can simply walk away, forcing someone who otherwise would never have volunteered, to step up, because the lack of a reliable person doing that job threatens the organization. You may be perceived as weak or unreliable for quitting your task, but if you can take that criticism, you may consider yourself a hero for forcing someone else to take responsibility and for giving yourself new found freedom to consider other directions and opportunities. The future starts right now. Re-assess your obligations and, if you feel overburdened, continue only those you deem worthwhile.

Evaluate the US Debt Limit Negotiations

Here are my Seven Principles of Negotiation from my book, DECISION TIME! Better Decisions for a Better Life. After all the smoke clears in Washington, decide for yourself whether each side did a good job of handling the process, regardless of what it looked like to outsiders.

The first principle of negotiation is that you must be sensitive to the needs of others when you set priorities for what you hope to accomplish. If all parties have the same list of priorities, then it is unlikely that the negotiations will be successful. However, it is usually the case that there will be differences in the priority lists for the two or more parties to the negotiations. This will allow a final outcome where more than one party comes away from the process having satisfied his top priority goal. By being sensitive to the desires of others, you can set your priorities into a structure that makes negotiation success more likely.

The second principle of negotiation is that you must make it very clear to your opponent which are your top priorities and how determined you are to achieve them. It is a fact of human nature that if you are able to reach a decision that gains your top priority objective too easily, you will feel that you could have negotiated an even better outcome. This is true whether you are setting the price for the purchase of a used car or if you are involved in a complex labor contract negotiation. For this reason, most negotiations will and should start out with a firm statement of your goals. These goals should be reiterated and should seem to be inflexible for as long as possible. There is acting involved in such posturing, but the objective is to find out which party most desires a positive outcome to the negotiations. That party will usually show the first sign of flexibility. If no such flexibility is seen on either side, progress may have to be made as the result of setting a deadline or introducing a third party to mediate the process. A final alternative to inflexibility is to walk away from the negotiation process. If and only if your opponent believes that you are truly willing to stop the process, moving to end the negotiations may actually introduce flexibility from your adversary and stimulate the process toward success.

The third principle of negotiation is that although you frequently will have to resolve conflicts by giving in to someone else’s viewpoint, you should always try to get something back in return for your willingness to see things their way. This is usually an acceptable and expected trade procedure. Even when there may not be an item on the table that your opponent is willing to give up in exchange for your flexibility, you may be able to gain something by proposing that he or she commit to a future benefit for you. This is why so many sports team trade negotiations end up including “a player to be named later” or a future draft choice. It is easier to reach agreement in this way because neither party knows the true value of a future benefit.

The fourth principle of negotiation is that decisions proceed from the bottom to the top. For this reason, it may be useful to have some low priority points on which you are willing to give in to your opponent’s viewpoint. They may mean little to you, but after you have relinquished something, it is reasonable for you to expect your adversary to offer you something in return. Not only are smaller points agreed before larger points, but also in formal team negotiations there is a “pecking order” for personnel on the two sides. [Lower level people decide lower level matters. Highest level people come in only when trying to come to the final agreement.]

The fifth principle of negotiation is that when you are not sure what to decide on a particular point, the best tactic is to add something to the discussion which “puts the ball in the other party’s court” and gives your opponent responsibility for the next decision. This approach gives you more time to reach the decision that was facing you, and it may also give you new and valuable information from your opponent’s response on the new matter.

The sixth principle of negotiation is that you can’t please or accommodate everyone. You will definitely have to say No in many situations, and you will have to be firm about it. The word No has great value in that it can be used to reverse or slow down the momentum of a negotiation. You may be willing to concede additional points to your adversary, but judicious use of the word No will help you to gain return concessions and will help you to minimize those items on which you have to yield. It also helps to create an image of you as a tough negotiator, and in negotiations image is very important.

The seventh principle of negotiation is that the party with the greatest detailed knowledge of the matters being discussed has a great advantage. If you have all the details immediately available while your adversary has to repeatedly call for assistance from others or request a break in the process to obtain more information, you are negotiating from strength while the other party is negotiating from weakness. It is very important that you have done your homework before the meetings even start.

Making Mistakes

In life as in writing mistakes are not necessarily bad things. In most decision situations, you should not be afraid of making a mistake. Mistakes generate experiences from which we learn. The same is true in writing, whether fiction or nonfiction. When you make a mistake in the way you try to communicate a lesson or a story, you have to use creativity to overcome and explain the situation in which you have found yourself. Most mistakes are reversible, and there are many paths to get from here to there. Midcourse corrections are not only acceptable but desirable, because they add precision to your final outcome or destination. In writing, the analog of midcourse corrections is the revision process. It is virtually impossible to author a significant book without going back and making revisions to the manuscript. In life we also have to compensate for our misstatements and misdeeds in order to achieve our goals (which may also require modification) or to get along with other people. Just remember to trust your inner moral compass and make your own mistakes rather than allow yourself to be misled by others. There are always people with little or no stake in your well-being who will try to move you off your intended course.

Unintended Consequences

Whenever you make a decision that will affect your future, you should remember that unintended consequences may result. Here are a few societal and personal examples that come to mind:
Desire: Use computers more to eliminate files of papers. Result: More paperwork as people back up their computers with paper versions because of mistrust of computer reliability or rapid computer obsolescence.
Desire: Pass more laws to control crime and regulate society. Result: More lawyers.
Desire: Visits to fast food restaurants to save time in busy schedules. Result: Obesity and poor nutrition balance.
Desire: Get the best cable or satellite TV package. Result: Lack of exercise and obesity; no time for other tasks.
Desire: Hire landscapers to have a more appealing lawn and grounds. Result: Lack of exercise.

I'm sure you can think of other similar cases.