Who's the Bigger Spy?

There's much discussion and, in some quarters, consternation about the U.S. Government tracking people's emails and telephone calls in the proclaimed interest of defeating terrorist plots. The debate usually centers on personal privacy and liberty vs. the need for the government to protect its citizens and non-citizens alike. Perhaps this same kind of scrutiny should be applied to looking at what private firms do with your emails and internet transactions. Google takes keywords out of every email you write (at least on gmail, but perhaps elsewhere too), and uses it to tailor the advertising that you receive during your online interactions. Two days ago, I ordered flowers online for commemoration of my sister's anniversary. Within an hour, I noticed that just about every online site I visited had advertisements for the flower vendor from which I had ordered. The same thing happens if you search for a product which you may someday want to buy or which about which you want information. A few months back I went on Google to look up the dimensions of a faucet, and immediately afterward, I was deluged with faucet advertising, both from the manufacturer in the inquiry and from others. If you are signed in to Google, they document everything you do online.

We learn to live with private firm invasions of privacy. Why is it so shocking when the government does a version of the same thing for national security purposes. The important thing to remember is that you shouldn't say or do anything online that you aren't willing for someone to see. I'm in a particularly bad situation. I write murder mysteries (See https://www.amazon.com/author/richarddavidson ), and I frequently search for poisons and other devices for causing mayhem in my books. I wonder what all of the internet spy organizations are saying about me? The fact is that your computer leaves records or footprints with every click and search and scan. Get used to it, or completely disconnect yourself from the internet forever. Isn't it amazing that mankind survived without the internet until twenty years ago? Can we do so again?

Stop Sending Your Money to China

I frequently advocate that people in the USA should Buy American products and services. It's time for outsourcing to end, and everyone in the United States, citizen or not, has a vote in this process. We vote with our purchasing decisions. Whether you are buying a tube of toothpaste, a household product, or a new car, buy something that is made in USA or has the maximum amount of US content. We have to break the cycle of sending our money overseas to China and others so that they can lend our money back to us at high interest rates. Every time you buy a US product you keep money in circulation within the USA; you increase demand at US companies which creates jobs for US workers; and you give incentives for those companies to invest in new equipment and learn how to make better and more competitive products. The economy started downhill when American companies started having products made overseas to enhance short term profits. It's time to think long term and rebuild American manufacturing capabilities. The one and only solution is your looking for the Made in USA label. The government in Washington can't fix the situation, but you can, one purchase of US goods and services at a time. Each US purchase is a vote for prosperity. Read those country of origin labels...Vote early and often.

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.

Friends and Enemies

Which of these do you believe?

• The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
• The enemy of my friend is my enemy.
• The friend of my enemy is my enemy unless he/she belongs to my political party.
• The friend of my friend is my friend unless his/her political party is different from mine.
• What's good for the country is more important than what's good for my political party.
• What's good for my political party is by definition good for the country.
• What's good for me is by definition good for my party and country.
• Who cares about anyone else? Do what will get me reelected.
• I love everyone until after the votes have been counted.

The Most Obsolete Word in the English Language

It appears that the most terrible thing that a politician anywhere in the world can do is to use the word compromise. Politicians have become more doctrinaire than ever, with discussions described as stand-offs and any comment from a member of a different party described as belligerent, uninformed, and adversarial. A certain amount of defense of your position is good posturing as part of the negotiation process (See my book: DECISION TIME! Better Decisions for a Better Life.), but frequently politicians aren't negotiating at all, but merely trying to score points and develop issues for the next election. Compromise should be the lubricant that makes governments work. Bombast only succeeds in minimizing the public's respect for their elected and appointed officials. In many conversations I hear citizen members of both parties agree that solutions to national problems aren't that difficult if the people in power would only use the second most obsolete term in the English language, common sense. In the field of law, the yardstick for evaluating an action is frequently: What would a reasonable person do? Why can't politicians and government leaders (most of whom are lawyers) ask themselves that same question, and act upon their answers to it?

Half Full, NOT Half Empty

What the U.S., and for that matter the world, needs to realize going into the future is that the proverbial glass is half full. For all the complaints about slower-than-expected employment growth and too much indebtedness, we have all accomplished a lot on our way back from the economy's burst bubble due to unrealistic home ownership policies and other problems. Whether you are talking about personal career development, governmental projects, or international development, a pessimistic future outlook is dwarfed by an inventory taken to show what we have accomplished in the past. The strength of democracies and market-oriented businesses is that each manages to do one or two good things every day. When you look backward to see how far you have come, you will generally be amazed. The incremental things we do each day appear small because we like to talk about achievement of goals rather than maintenance of progress. Make a little progress every day, week, month, and year. As you continue making that progress, you will be able to look back and see that goals have, indeed, been achieved. The glass is at least half full.

Communication Stifled by Suspicion

I listened with interest to a telephone interview between National Public Radio and a Syrian woman. They were discussing the status of opposition to the Syrian government and its massive aggressive retaliation. The most interesting point in the interview for me came when the woman was asked about socialization in small gatherings during the course of this situation. Her response made me realize how uncomfortable one becomes when one is not sure of the political and doctrinal standing of the person with whom one is conversing. The conversation continues, but the content is watered down to inconsequential blather. Suspicion breeds lack of true communication and self-censorship. There is no true communication without the exchange of ideas and opinions. When one is afraid to declare one's position on any topic, the suppressive goal of the state or other controlling organization has already been achieved. Those of us who are removed from such a situation and enjoy the ability to speak freely with peers and at least cautiously evaluated strangers should realize how fortunate we are.

The Proper Way to Balance the United States Budget

The Republicans and Democrats are competing to see who can do the best job of improving the fiscal status of the United States. They are both going about it the wrong way (as is the Tea Party also). It takes a lot more work, but if you really want to get the country's economy in good shape, you don't reduce the budget. The proper technique is to wipe out the budget altogether. Take it to zero, and then, item by item, decide what should go back into it. If our government had the commitment and stamina to set up a group to completely rebuild the budget from scratch, we would end up operating the country at a much lower financial level. The problem is that our politicians would never approve the process. They would have to justify each and every item in the budget, which would be a colossal job, but more important, it would expose the flimsy justification for many of the components of the existing budget. There are many parts of the federal budget that are there just because they pay for doing things the way we have done them for a long time in the past. As Shakespeare said, "The past is prologue." The only way they will find most (but not all) of the unjustified spending is to throw everything out, and start over. The nature of politics is that some waste will find its way back into the new budget because of the need to compromise and horsetrade between opposing views, but a huge amount of what we now spend will not be justifiable to either side. Assign three of the best minds from each party plus a couple of economics professors to a special committee, and the job will become doable, even if extremely difficult.

Walking Tightropes

In the Middle East, the fictional country of Ibrimia is on the edge of a revolution. Thirty-seven friends have managed to get the populace of the second largest city upset at the ruling regime. They have convinced the people that they could achieve many of their dreams if their country was a democracy. In this action they are copying the pattern of successful government changes elsewhere. The existing regime considers itself to be generous to a fault in providing free college education and healthcare, and in distributing significant oil revenues to all citizens.
If the activists force out the regime, the stability of oil income might end. While the majority of the population is in favor of democracy and new leadership, there is no agreement as to what alternate group should rule and with what agenda.
While the existing regime does not want to use military might against its own population, it feels that it offers the safest and most secure future for everyone.
What is the best course for each side to take in walking the conflict tightrope toward an improved future?

• Should the regime announce increased benefits and salary structures?
• Should the activists hold meetings to elect a "government-in-waiting" that will formulate and announce the people's goals following the ouster of the current regime?
• Should the regime offer big increases in employment on government-funded public works projects?
• Should the activists meet openly with government representatives to discuss possible power sharing and reforms of constitutional provisions?
• Should the regime offer term limits for itself and future governments?
• Should the activists attempt to split the country and gain international recognition for the part they control?
• Should the regime risk international condemnation by cutting off financial support and utilities to the part of the country it no longer controls?
• Should the activists invite outsiders to support their cause?
• Should the regime cancel the citizenship of the activists and offer citizenship to loyal immigrant workers instead?
• Should the activists seek an alliance of their part of the country with the neighboring large and stable country?
• Should the regime threaten the neighboring country with attack if it interferes in Ibrimia's internal affairs?
• Should representatives of both sides meet secretly to negotiate a mutually acceptable outcome?
• Should the regime ignore the uprising but ship its wealth overseas just in case the outcome isn't favorable?

If you were leading one side or the other, what would you do or recommend?

What's the Value of Conflict?

Most of the effort we put into interpersonal relations, and most of the effort our governments put into international relations are aimed at reducing or eliminating conflict. The tensions in our lives are caused by the many conflicts we perceive and encounter. Obviously, conflict must be a bad thing because we always try to eliminate it. This statement is not necessarily true in life, because we gain most of our benefits from negotiations due to the conflicts that ensue during the bargaining process. When you write fiction, as I do*, you learn that nobody will want to read your book if it doesn't contain enough conflict. People find books that are all happiness and void of conflict to be boring and uninteresting. Thus, we have a paradox between life and fiction. In life, we try our best to avoid conflict, while in the selection of fiction to read, we go out of our way to search for it. To resolve this conundrum, we have to look at the impact of conflict. If conflict impacts or affects us during the course of our lives, we seek to avoid it because conflict costs us in many ways: money, sleep, friendships, etc. When conflict occurs in a novel, it impacts fictional characters, and we can find that interesting without working up a sweat over it. It is the same principle that lets us enjoy a football game between two teams that aren't our favorites without caring who wins. We have no stake in the outcome. When one of the teams comes from our home town or college, we go through a psychological roller coaster process when our team looks as though it is on the way to winning or losing. The next time you find yourself in a personal conflict with someone, tell yourself that the outcome really doesn't matter that much, and you will find yourself able to think your way through it more objectively. If you don't let conflict emotionally suck you in, you will be more likely to be able to work your way out of it.

*To enjoy some conflict, read my "Lord's Prayer Mystery Series", books out to date: Lead Us Not into Temptation, Volume I, and Give Us this Day Our Daily Bread, Volume II. (written as Richard Davidson)

This Speech Has Been Long Overdue.

Jeffrey Immelt of General Electric Company has made a speech that is worth reading in its entirety. He says things that our leaders should have said long ago. Click on the title of this post to read it.

What If?

What if lenders were required to submit loan analysis forms showing a reasonable probability of repayment to a regulating or insuring agency before issuing mortgage loans? (or at least a computerized go/no-go program to minimize feedback delays)?

What if the government had been willing to invest even half of the proposed bailout amount into infrastructure improvements so that more people had jobs and the wherewithall to repay their loans (Does anyone remember Keynesian economics?)?

What if the government encouraged people to Buy American so that more of our capital and jobs stayed here and the dollar was worth more?

What if the government encouraged people to save money in the banking system by not taxing interest on savings accounts?

What if business management salaries were pegged to results in both directions so that they went down when the business did poorly as well as going up on increased profits?

What if U.S. imports carried higher duties that could be partially offset by purchases of our exports?

What if non-emergency government spending was required by law to be balanced by corresponding income?

What if banking and credit companies were legally barred from having fees and penalties that were not openly shown in the LARGE PRINT and proportional only to the amount of money specifically involved in the case of late amounts?

What if companies and banks could not disclose your personal information to others unless you specifically allowed them to (Opt IN, rather than Opt OUT)?

What if automobile companies could not promote "Flex-Fuel" or natural gas vehicles in any area where the alternate fuel was not readily available for purchase?

What if we all had to avoid complaining for at least one day per week (You would live longer.)?