The Second Act

An article by Cameron Morfit appearing at golf.com places a new spin on the Tiger Woods story. Americans, we are told, are capable of “rubber-necking” and gawking when a personal tragedy unfolds. We love hearing “dirt” about our famous people. But we are also a forgiving people; we believe in a “Second Act”.

What strikes me about this piece is that people going through a divorce need to believe that there will be a “Second Act”. We hopefully learn from our misfortunes and even our mistakes. The future can always be brighter than our present. The question though to ask is what is more likely to bring on “Act Two”; litigation and confrontation or mediation and its attendant basic civility? If you pray for a “Second Act” ponder this question and then make the decision that will make a “new start” more of a reality. Mediation works!

Tired of Tiger?

Tiger Woods is controlling the news cycle, it seems. We are fascinated by bad news. Good news is taken for granted. Holiday time is a good time to reverse this cycle. Appreciate what you have and improve on it. Talk with your loved one, spend time together, and cherish the moment. If you need a mediator know where to look, but know that life is meant to be cherished. Carpe diem.

Can Public People Expect Privacy

Tiger Woods. Heard enough already? The new internet buzz concerns whether he was entitled to privacy or not. This replaces the original buzz; i.e. Should we care or not what our “idols” do in private. As Charles Barkley once said; “We never asked to be role models”. And indeed often our idols are not role models.

Harry Shearer penned a reaction to the effect :”If you want privacy Tiger, play golf and just go home.” There is a point to all this idle (no pun intended) talk. People who do not seek public scrutiny may de facto lose their privacy based on who they are or what they do. This applies to litigants who are involved in litigation or divorce proceedings. Their statements are matters of public record, their deeds are recounted, and their trials are public forums. Who would want such a loss of privacy. Mr. Barkley is correct; no one asked for this.

Precisely because no one wants a loss of privacy, our system has produced alternative measures. There is mediation; a process which is civil and productive. There are attorneys who seek to resolve cases and not litigate them. Your privacy is valuable; your good name is priceless. Mediate don’t litigate. At the very least, find a peaceful way to resolve your differences and go on with life. Mr. Shearer is right. Do what you need to go and then proceed on “home” with your life. You will not receive better advice.

Is Obama Too Nice?

Pat Buchanan, crusty conservative commentator (pardon the alliteration), wrote a piece on whether the niceness of our President is a detriment to his conduct of foreign affairs. Our enemies are not intimidated by a leader who is too nice, says Mr. Buchanan. The issue is yet another “nice” way of criticizing President Obama. It does raise an interesting question though as to whether a party who chooses mediation will be harmed by an appearance of niceness. This concern is especially relevant where a party suggests mediation and is then rebuffed by a her/his spouse, partner, etc.

In some aspects of life, being nice cannot be a detriment. The point of mediation is getting to Win-Win; a state where everybody gets something and sacrifices something. The fact that a party is enlightened will not harm their ultimate position if they indeed need to litigate. Judges seem to favor the process whereby the parties try to amicably work out their issues. It is always easy to fight and to get a “hired gun” to do battle. That should be the lat step though, not the first one. Niceness in the hopes of attaining agreement is not a sign of weakness. Reaching a settlement is not the same as international dealing. Try mediation first. You cannot lose in the attempt to get to Win-Win. Nice guys do not always finish last.

Gov Flips Out

The NY Post had a heading in today’s paper: “Gov Flips Out”. The reference was to Governor David Paterson of NY, who objected to the White House decision to hold hearings on the 9/11 terrorists in the Big Apple. What does this tell us (other than the fact that the Post has sensationalist headlines)?

Clearly, the White Houses did not do enough to explain its decision on why New York was selected as forum for these trials. Governor Paterson was apparently “out of the loop”. This oversight to a fellow Democrat, and governor of the affected state, was not well-received. It led to an easy verbal slap made in the press by Gov. Paterson. Not being included in the deliberations gave Gov. Paterson the “luxury” of “popping off”.

People need to feel they are valued. One way to do so, is to include such people in decisions that will ultimately affect them. The more communication, the more likely that there will be a positive outcome. If nothing else, added communication might have assured a more compliant governor, in this case. No one gains by a display of divisive or bitter relations.

Having a party feel they are not being heard or being ignored is detrimental to any negotiation. Communication needs to be inclusive and sensitive to feelings of the participants. Divorce proceedings by their nature are traumatic and charged with emotion. What to do? Have the parties know they are being heard and that they are being respected. The one party who can ensure that this will happen is the mediator. Results occur when the parties feel a sense of trust and comfort. The mediator can make this happen. No one else can come close to effectuating such behavior.

Mediation is civil and it affirms the rights of the parties to be heard and treated with respect. Mediation works. There is no more effective way to achieve settlement in a divorce process, with dignity.

Lesson From Tragedy

There are many “rear view experts” in light of a tragedy such as Fort Hood. If only…The important focus should be on those slain. May they rest in peace. And may the injured recovered.

The one point about communication that has been brought to light is that there were tell-tales signs of a problem with Dr. Hasan. This officer, that parent. that Imam; they all had insights to offer about possible problems. But their thoughts were fragmented. No one “connected all the dots” to get the true picture of Dr. Hasan’s grimmer side. This was no one’s fault, but it is a fact that needs to be considered as part on the inquiry.

In effective communication, all the players are at the table. All opinions need to be heard and aired. In mediation too the key to a “breakthrough” is honest and open communication. “Win-Win” is too powerful a goal to allow for breaches in effective dialogue. This is why mediation can succeed where litigation cannot. The Fort Hood massacre could not have been avoided easily. The lines of communication were too diffuse. Society does best when communication flows freely. This is the key to the success of mediation.

Election Day 2009

New York and New Jersey have similar themes in electoral races. William Thompson, a decent man, is running for Mayor in NYC on a platform that seems to state “I am not Bloomberg”. Across the river, in New Jersey, Chris Christie wishes to be governor, it seems, because “I am not Corzine.” Elections once what about what we wanted. Today they seem to be about what we wish to avoid.

Divorce based on litigation seems to have that negative thrust. Parties want what they want, often, because they fear their adversary might get “there” ahead of them. What parties should truly want is Win-Win. If you are getting divorced, vote for your interests. Define what you need, go about your work with civility and decency, armed with your mediator, and “victory” will truly be within reach. Mediation works. Mediate don’t litigate.

Pulling Your Weight

The New Jersey governor’s race has sunk into the ridiculous. Governor Corzine’s ads highlight the fact that Challenger Chris Christie is “heavy”. (He weighs over 300 pounds). Is this significant? To this Gov. Corzine says that it is up to the voters to decide.

People resort to “low blows” when there is much riding on the line. If Gov. Corzine wins, expect him years from now to disavow this tactic. But for today it seems to be appropriate for political discourse.

In divorces, people will fight for advantages, dollars, debating points, etc. if they are allowed to do so. It is unfortunate but true. What can one do to avoid this? Employ the services of a trained mediator who will keep a proper focus and dialogue. Do we truly wish to win at all costs? Mediators, being an optimistic group, will assume the answer is in the negative. Keep your dignity and priciples intact, Mediate don’t litigate.

The President and Acceptance of the Nobel Prize

Much ink has been spilled about the awarding of a Nobel Prize to President Obama. Was it deserved? Was it premature? Should the President have refused to receive such an accolade? Regarding the last question, a rather insightful comment was made by a radio commentator. Had the president said he would not wish to receive such an award, would he not have been accused of arrogance and grandstanding? Sometimes we are truly “damned if we do and damned if we don’t”. Some of life’s surprises, bad or good, present us with no good alternatives. In such situations we simply must make the best decision we can and hope for the best.

Divorce proceedings give us many situations where no good alternatives seem to exist. In such situations, mediation allows the parties to sort through various options and try to make the decision that brings with it the lowest human cost. Life is not perfect. This is true, moreso, for divorce negotiations. When we are young, we can “flip a coin” in such situations. Fortunately, when we are older we have a proper forum for making decisions. It is called mediation. Mediation works. Mediate don’t litigate.

Moore on Capitalism

A recent movie review stated the difficulty in reviewing Michael Moore movies. If you like the movie, you are branded a radical. If you pan the movie, you are then described as an obscurantist. People like Michael Moore are very common. They only see one perspective; their own. While producers with such propensities can still make money, those who negotiate with such tunnel-vision are likely to experience disappointment and frustration.

Mediators have many techniques to broaden the view of those engaged in negotiations. One needs to be able to see that there is another perspective even if they disagree with it. Information should not be shunned nor feared. A trained mediator can guide both parties through difficult moments caused by seeing only your own perspective. Mediation works when it is done with professionalism and insight. Mediate don’t litigate. Do you want to be accused of being another Michael Moore?