My Take on the Christmas Story--Part II (for children of an undisclosed age)

I want to tell you a story.

It’s a story about darkness and light.  All ancient people have stories of this kind.

The stories often involved primitive people seeing a  big golden ball rising above them to give heat and light.  Then they saw the ball slowly fall until it disappeared and it was dark and cool.

Some Chinese do an exercise called ‘the sun and moon exchange.’ They raise one arm up to the sky and spin it around and look up at the sun.  They lower that arm and raise the other so they can observe the moon rising.

At times the light and warmth stayed for as long as did the dark and chill.  But as time passed  there was less and less light and more and more darkness.  Then all of a sudden the time of light began to be longer than the time of darkness.

The people  would wait and wait through many cycles, appearing and disappearing,  sometimes doubting that the sun would ever return.  They thought that maybe they would live in the dark forever.

Finally, when they saw that the sun began to be around longer, the remembered it as a very important day, a day of celebration and joy.

This story I am going to share with you is about a young woman who was waiting for the light.   She had learned by then that you didn’t have to be afraid of the dark.  She also knew that the sun coming up didn’t always make things better.  

She wanted light that would help her to understand her life better,  because it had become so puzzling to her.  She didn’t know what to do.   She was going to have a baby but had no husband. She was poor and her neighbors were going to ignore her.   Her name is Mary.   Her heart was troubled.  It had darkness in it.

This is a story about how the darkness of her heart became light for her and for others.

A good man in town saw her troubles and offered to become her husband.  His name was Joseph.  Some mysterious voice came to him in a dream that gave him courage.  He was told that the baby that Mary would have would be very special.  So special that he would be called the people’s King.

Now that was really pretty wild.  How could a tiny baby be the King?  King’s were usually powerful and did not like poor people like Mary and Joseph.

The King of the people at that time was a strong, not so nice guy named Herod. He was ordering poor people like Joseph and Mary to sign up with the government so the King could collect taxes, get money from them to make him and his friends richer and more powerful than they already were.

It was a dark time for Mary and Joseph and for their families. Kings had been ordering them around for hundreds and hundreds of years.  They only wanted their own place to live and their own people as their leaders.  But this never happened.  Every time they tried to get rid of the bad king, they were defeated. There was no justice.

Mary and Joseph’s great, great, great, great grandmothers and grandfathers and aunts and uncles and cousins by the dozens had been waiting for this new King, the King of the Jews, their people.  But a King never came that favored them or Mary.  How long could they wait for kindness and justice to appear?

So seeing no choice in the matter, they would have to register to pay taxes.   They had to travel a long way from their home, from out of the way, small town Nazareth to Bethlehem, the center of government.

When they got to Bethlehem every place to stay was taken.  There was no room anywhere for them to spend the night.  Mary’s heart was troubled.  It was still dark. Where was the promise of light to come from? 

But when they had lost all hope, an Innkeeper who had no regular room for them to stay pointed them to the back of the Inn where they could lie down with the animals.  They settled in to do the best they could in this not too nice place.  In some ways they couldn't imagine being more lowly.

And then it happened!  Mary’s baby was born.  It was a boy.    She and Joseph were relieved and happy.  Mary wrapped him up securely in some old blankets. Suddenly the future seemed bright.

But many people, mostly poor and ordinary people, including some tending their sheep, saw the light coming from the stable and rushed in to see what had happened.  They heard Mary’s story and went out across the country to tell everyone that a new King was born.

They named the baby Jesus which means ‘one who saves’ or ‘one who brings the light.’

The light was not only for Mary and Joseph and the shepherds.  It was for all who looked for a different kind of King.   Could poor Mary and good Joseph be the parents of such a great person?   It may sound silly for a baby to be a King,  but these people didn’t think so.

Light, a great light,  had finally come into their lives.  And the Darkness was overcome.  That’s why we tell Mary’s story at the time of year, when more light appears day by day.

Mary became the bearer of ‘the simple truth.’  Every person is special. No one is better than anyone else.  The tiny, the weak and the poor are precious. For a small group, he became their king and everything for them was changed forever.

My Take on the Christmas Story--Part One

It’s Christmas time.  The holiday was named to celebrate the birth of Jesus, but behind this celebration is a long history of story-telling and ritual. Several stories get repeated during this season.  In the United States the dominant story is the story of the commercial rush. Buying stuff fits most easily into the story of St. Nicholas (Santa Claus is the Dutch translation) kept alive by the anonymously written poem, “The Night Before Christmas”. Christmas in the United States is an amalgam of many traditions.

Of course, there is Charles Dickens’ Scrooge, It’s a Wonderful Life, Christmas Story, the Nutcracker, and more.  Stories that create a mood of joy and community.

Each way we celebrate the holiday stands or falls on its own merit.  Combining them or looking for a common theme can water down the meaning of each of them.

The stories of the season are many and varied.  It is sometimes difficult to sort out the value of the differences among them.  *Though not agreed upon totally by scholars, it seems that it took almost 300 hundred years after Jesus’ birth, for part of the Christian church to chose December 25th as the day to dedicate to Jesus’ birth.  Another part chose January 6. (simply the difference in calendar changes.) Either way may have been a way of blunting the pagan meanings attached to that time of year by Saturnalia, a wild display of ‘freedom’--drunkenness, nakedness and sometime persecution of minority persons.

Our national and global context is radically different from the history that created Christmas as a given for everyone.  People in our time have seen and experienced too much evidence of a wider more interrelated and interdependent world to accept without question the story of the birth of Jesus as ‘the’ objective Truth.  That is troubling to many for whom this account from twenty centuries past has become a central meaning in life. 

As Christianity has become a part of a larger world, it is not necessarily true that its essential meaning is lost.  It does mean, however, that articulation of that story and its meaning has no leg up on any other tries to represent truth.  It is what it is, nothing more and nothing less.

The depth meaning of the Christmas story will not be advanced by insisting on it being the only story.  In fact, that weakens its potential significance.  Like any communication there must be first a relationship that can receive something in an open way.  If it is useful to the hearer,  meaning will come from announcing and sharing the story itself, not in trying to prove its worth by dismissing the experience and stories of others.  Even though Hanukkah is not a major Jewish feast, it does show up this time of year.  There is much to learn from the history and practice of the Jewish people.   Kwanzaa  has also been developed to be a way that all people, but particularly African-Americans can lift up core values.  These neither need to agree with one another nor contradict the other's claims.

Each story rises and falls on its own telling, hearing and action. It is not a question of competition but rather a question of purpose, meaning and significance for our personal and social living.

The story of Jesus has its own meaning.  We all know that mere repetition and ritualizing of it is not enough.  The challenge facing the Christian church is how to tell and share that story in a simple way that communicates the power the church believes the story of Jesus possesses. It need not be forced on others nor should it be marginalized because the other stories are more modern, entertaining, or satisfying. What is each story’s contribution to our common search for truth?

The story of Jesus’ birth (apart from the rest of his living and dying) is a simple story of human beings trying to find new life and light in the midst of death and darkness.  In that sense it bears a consistency with the many stories world-wide that over thousands of years attest to overcoming the dark forces of despair with light and the power of hope.

While a section of the scriptures of the Christian church tell two stories of the birth of Jesus (Matthew and Luke), they are told from two different perspectives. Not surprisingly differences exist between the two in sequence of events, those persons and places mentioned and not mentioned, and the author’s point of view--different angles on the same story.   A third ancient story teller, Mark, doesn’t mention Jesus’ birth at all. A fourth, John, uses the metaphors of darkness and light to communicate the meaning of Jesus in the world.

The popular re-telling of the story of Jesus’ birth usually melds these very different accounts and adds or subtracts certain emphases to make it a good story.  Martin Luther’s take, ‘the babe in the manger is the man on the cross’ suggests that to grasp the meaning of the birth, one must also see where this birth went.

Therefore, the telling of the story today is always one of picking and choosing.  One could argue that a consistent narrative has emerged that most of us recognize.

 A young woman, pregnant by mysterious means is without a husband. But a good man named Joseph agrees to marry her to avoid her disgrace in the community.  An enigmatic messenger (angel) tells Joseph not to be afraid because something special is going on here.   Joseph and Mary’s family have been summoned by Roman Emperor Augustus to be enrolled as citizens so they could pay taxes.  The ‘King of the Jews’ is the regional prelate named Herod.  They traveled a long distance  to pay taxes in their regional center, Bethlehem.  Upon arrival they search but do not find a place to sleep.  An innkeeper offers them a place with his animals in a stable.  It is there that Mary gives birth to Jesus.  She wraps the baby in ‘swaddling cloths’ and lays him in a manger ( trough for feeding animals.)  The word travels pretty widely though by shepherds who are tending their flocks outside the town. They are drawn, they say, by a light that guides them to the stable.  Through messengers named Angels, Joseph, Mary and others hear that this baby will grow up to challenge the oppression of King Herod and to bring a new kind of freedom to the Hebrew nation. The Wise Men show up later having to travel from long distances.  They seem to represent the whole world coming to recognize Jesus.

He is given a traditional Jewish name Jesus a transliteration of the Greek.  The older form is similar to Joshua, a Jewish hero that took the torch from Moses to lead Israel into the Promised Land.  Jesus can be translated as ‘one who saves.’

'Christmas' stops there.  Going beyond that is 'the rest of the story.'

Jesus is called the ‘Christ’ later in his life, a word that means ‘the anointed one.’ It is the role he plays, like Bob the Builder, Jesus the Christ. Christ is not his last name, the son of Joseph and Mary Christ.

The Hebrews, also called Jews and Israelites, have a 2000 year history of waiting for a new King, a Messiah who will throw off the slavery they experience and provide a path to a new way of living.  Some welcome this ‘good news’ while others doubt, are cynical and reject this claim of Kingship.   We are still discussing these differences today.

Can a baby born of questionable parenthood provide a new profound understanding of power?  Is there power in weakness, humility, and is that a truth that serves us more than the power of politicians, military leaders, and power brokers?

The simplicity of the story is its humanness and the truth of life it sets forth. While the world and its citizens find themselves oppressed, possibility exists when anyone can claim their own uniqueness and power.  It’s a long shot kind of hope, but when realized it carries with it a significant message about living.

Of course, as we know the story of Jesus does not stop with the story of his birth.  He teaches, preaches and heals throughout his life.  He walks among the poorest of the poor and challenges the establishment at every turn.  He eventually is killed, but becomes the central figure in a movement that is some years later named ‘Christian.’ 

This is only the beginning of a story that has been used for good and ill since its inception.  At its heart, it is a story that recognizes the gifts and possibility of every human regardless of privilege, culture, and economics.

The Jesus’ story offers one way to view life.  From the bottom up.  Some think that is the most important message in life.  Others on hearing the story might find it useful for their journey.

The past twenty centuries are filled with incidents where so-called followers of Jesus, including its leaders, have committed horrible atrocities in his name.  It is never beyond the stretch of human beings to distort a message to serve an evil purpose. These distortions certainly don’t help the case for the value of the Jesus’ story.  When these misinterpretations and uses are stripped away from the essence of the story, is there stil an essential human truth worth living and sharing?

Is it ‘The Greatest Story Ever Told’? Only you can decide.  And if this isn’t, what is?

*this article is not intended as a scholarly dissertation on the subject. It is the author’s attempt to cut through all of the ways we use to miss what the story seems to be about. Any proven historical accuracies will be acknowledged.  If they serve to change the author’s conviction about the story, he will take those into consideration.

+The author is using this article as a way of answering, partially, the question, ‘who is ‘Jesus’ for me today?’

Searching for a Response

Newtown, Connecticut.  There are few things that move us to the center as quickly as the death of the innocents.  It begins with those closest to the victims as mother, father, sister and brother.  The circle of concern moves out from that to near neighbor and distant neighbor.  Because of media others of us are instantly present, drawn into the pain and suffering and inexplicable nature of such events.

The wise ones throughout the history of humanity have recognized that such happenings create in us a vacuum.  We who have or think we should have answers for everything, have answers for nothing.  All of the research and explanations of certain patterns of behavior helps not at all.  Understandable outrage over such tragedy leaves us facing the abyss.  To pretend otherwise is simply to pretend.

But all events have a context.  Experiences vary, of course, from individual to individual.  Because of the increasing number of events (Columbine, Aurora, Milwaukee,  Atlanta, Ft. Hood, Phoenix etc.) in a short period of time, at least in the short term, a whole nation is momentarily confronted with questions of identity and meaning.  We want to know more about those who commit these horrendous acts, but even discovering that is part of our own inner quest to have more of a sense of who we are as human beings and as human beings in relationship.

As shocking as Newtown is (images of 6 and years olds being shot multiple times) a school principal in Oakland, California reminds us that literally hundreds of young people are shot and die monthly and annually on our playgrounds and in our neighborhoods across this nation.  These deaths spur us to rhetoric, but not to action.  For the 22 names we hear, there are 2220 that we never hear.  The deaths in our cities becomes so commonplace and so off the radar that there is little expectation nor call for something to be done.

However, as much as we ignore some deaths and pay attention to others, Newtown may provide us with another opportunity to address things we can do something about.   Newtown's image is quintessentially American, a model community of church, school and civic peacefulness.  Perhaps it takes a shattering of that dream place to awaken us to the need there and everywhere for things like sensible regulation of firearms and high quality preventive and treatment of those with mental illness.

As we have seen in the handling of our nation's economy, too often our lawmakers do not seem to understand what is at stake in our communities.   I just don't know how and why many of the people we vote to be our leaders seem so removed from the daily life most of us experience.  Their lack of the sense of urgency is appalling. We wildly celebrate one one senator or representative here of there who actually says something.  Mayor Bloomberg of New York City has sounded a clear call for action and has articulated that action.  He speaks common sense with conviction and it seems like a voice crying in the wilderness.  Where is everyone else?

It's remarkable that only a few speak out. That there is no powerful voice from our leaders to stop the violence and for us to be responsible citizens is disconcerting at best.   I would think that majority of our elected representatives would join Mayor Bloomberg.  If there is no leadership on this challenge, why would we expect any national vision on any aspect of our lives to come from them.  Perhaps, they are momentarily stunned into uncharacteristic silence.  What does this 'silence' teach?

We are loving the movie 'Lincoln' partly because he led the nation in a way that was indecisively decisive. That is he moved ahead with fear and trembling, but his resolve moved the nation by presenting an alternative direction, a larger vision.  Who has done this since Martin Luther King, Jr. and that was 40 years ago!  With President Obama's repeated phrase, 'we are the United States of America', he has the platform to lead us into a new understanding of our national purpose.  It is not clear that he will do that.

He has certainly done what is necessary and appropriate in response to the families, city and nation to create a space for conversation about the future.  And he has done it well.  I do not think that he should have called for policy changes immediately.  Now, however, by appointing Vice President Biden to bring together a commission to produce proposals in a month is a good step forward.

Then there is us, there is me.  We are citizens. There are many existing channels though which we can give our energy and our support to stir action.  Some of these are direct advocacy channels to lawmakers.  Then there are other groups pointed more to rallying the troops, signing up and presenting a mass number of supporters to register more loudly and clearly what needs to be done.

There are groups of parents hearing the call to be more present and useful in their local schools.  There are gatherings that are discussing the violent nature of our culture and steps that can be taken in our families and neighborhoods to teach non-violence as a way of life.

Finally, however, this is not a problem to be solved.  It is a reality to be understood at ever deepening levels.  Utopian wishes and plans help us think differently, but the human condition is such that disagreement, hatred, irrational behavior and senseless violence will not disappear.  Some tragedy cannot be avoided and we learn to move ahead somehow.  On the other hand, there is so much we can do in our own personal relationships.  We can create laws that serve us all better.  We can present the human stories that underscore non-violence.  We can become more aware of the wide-spread mental illness in our country and strengthen our care system.  We can reduce the easy option that people have to obtain firearms.

In short, we can put ourselves on the other side of the fear that leads to both arming ourselves and hiding from the need to build more healthily neighborhoods and communities.  When we do not name and face our fears--of one another, of sickness, of community responsibility--we create a culture that lives in retreat from reality.  We try to avoid any experience of dying.  That direction has no good outcome.  That's the heart of the matter.

Residents and Police--An Unnecessary Divide

• Archive 2007-present
• Archive 2002-07
• Site Map
• Staff

• HOME
• ABOUT
• ADVERTISE
• ARCHIVE
• CALENDAR
• CONTACT

Page Size

You are here: Home  Articles  Residents and Police - An Unnecessary Divide

Residents and Police - An Unnecessary Divide

Written by Currents Staff

Thursday, 01 November 2012

by Rick Deines, “Start by doing what’s necessary; then do what’s possible; and suddenly you are doing the impossible" - St. Francis of Assisi  The revelation of the mistreatment of Derek Walker while in police custody has surfaced the need for opening ongoing community-wide conversations. My hope is that we can find a way to begin a different kind of conversation that will spread across neighborhoods and include rank and file officers, the beat cops, and the Union, but in particular the average citizens who are often unheard in the discussion. Several factors influence a community’s ability to have this conversation. These include mutual stereotyping, assigning blame, generalizing accusations, and a lack of a basic communication skill set. What kind of policing brings stability to a neighborhood? We most often think of policing as the job of those hired and paid to keep the peace. Are there other approaches? I once attended a residential school that required us to “police” the grounds at 6:30 AM three times a week. Two decades later several Kansas City neighborhoods proclaimed every Saturday morning as “community policing” day. Neighbors gathered and walked their blocks “policing,” carrying plastic bags to pick up trash, noting places where newspapers or garbage had piled up, picking up needles or condoms that had remained behind. Mostly it was simply walking the block to become familiar with neighbors and conditions affecting  their quality of life. Police from the local precinct walked along and connected with the neighbors in ways not possible in the heat of the mutual accusations that come at the time of crisis. “We must hang together. . . else, we shall most assuredly hang separately.” At the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Ben Franklin reminds us of what it takes. There’s way too much “hanging separately” going on. Franklin seems to have been aware that these inalienable rights are found in community, not in isolation. I will use two terms that may be unusual, but useful. “Citizen residents” means all of us who live here, average folks seeking a better life. “Citizen police” means the police, hired to provide protection who are also citizens and fellow human beings, also seeking a better life. A third unusual term in this article is “fresh conversations.”  “Fresh” conversation suggests we may be stuck in “old” ways of communication. Alternate approaches exist to bring opposing points of view into the same space without simply hardening those positions. Residents and Police--An Unnecessary Divide Describing persons in the community as citizen residents and citizen police is an attempt to establish a common citizenship understanding as a beginning point to re-imagine how we improve the safety and security networks that we have. Fresh conversations can lead to a better understanding of the roles we each have and the relationships that are needed for effective law enforcement. Residents have a role in policing; police have a role in being citizens. Without minimizing the level of the suffering the Derek Walker incident has caused to the innocents, nor to suggest that all avenues of redress have been exhausted, a majority of both residents and police, as citizens, seek a path forward. Us versus them is not the best we can do. We need to recognize the common base that all citizens share. Some citizens are parents, some citizens are teachers, some citizens are firefighters, some citizens work at McDonald’s, some citizens run small businesses and some citizens are police. They are us and we are they. We are all citizens desiring lives of interest in communities of opportunity. New Language, Sharpened Skills, Fresh Conversation Think of the fresh conversation that could happen if we sought to engage both rank and file police and average members of the community with questions like these: • What is your first memory of meeting a police officer? Who taught you about the police and what they do? • What stereotypes do you have of the police? What stereotypes do you think police have of the community? How can those stereotypes be replaced by more true representations? • When have you thought the police were unfairly targeted? When did you think that police were in the wrong? • What do you do on a regular basis to make your neighborhood more safe and secure? • What ideas do you have that would introduce a broader view of policing that would bring citizen residents and citizen police into more meaningful contact? A fresh conversation starts off with five or six people agreeing to discuss a certain concern or topic from the perspective of their own experience. Everyone agrees to share equal time, refrain from interruptions, listen carefully to understand other points of view, and to be respectful and resilient especially if you disagree. Better training of officers is on everyone’s laundry list. We should add training of residents as well. Developing conversation skills could be part of that training, which includes developing the skills to facilitate these groups. Citizens of different generations, ethnic groups, and community interests could become facilitators. Conversation skills should recognize that vulnerability in sharing can be a strength. Admitting vulnerability removes the defenses and self-protections that we naturally turn to in “making my point.” Additional skills that emphasize the art of being curious about another’s ideas or slowing one’s speech down and pausing to make listening more effective have proven to create good relationships. More accessible focused conversations could take place in literally dozens of small groups across every Milwaukee community. These could be conversations that bring rank and file police and citizens together, out of the spotlight into the light of day. Imperfect but Improved “Be the change you want to see in the world.”--Mahatma Gandhi Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela are movement leaders who faced the reality of a great divisions among citizens in their nations. What is remarkable about their methods is that they found ways to provide everyone the opportunity, without prejudice, to be at the table. These began as small endeavors by ordinary people. They became new models of social well-being. The desire for immediate gratification is understandable. It just isn’t going to happen. However, gathering and planting seeds of hope through conversation can be a worthwhile way of having something new and unexpected emerge. Imperfect is all we ever really have. To improve upon the imperfect is within our reach. This is a longer term effort, not a solution that will immediately allow us to move on to other concerns. The lessons learned in such an approach will have implications for other areas of community life like education, employment and health care. Citizens who are residents and citizens who are the police “policing” together represent a vision and a call waiting for a response. Fresh conversations are the pathway. The Public Conversations Project (publicconversations.org) is the source of this method. Locally, the Frank P. Zeidler Center for Public Discussion bases its work on this approach. Rick Deines is a trained facilitator promoting public dialogue in Milwaukee through the Frank Zeidler Center for Public Discussion and the Community Transformation Project

 

Copyright © 2001 - 2012 Riverwest Currents. Designed by NewLocalMedia.com 

 

The 'Self' in Relationship

I usually have a bunch of thoughts after a Presidential debate. Not many this time around. I was stunned by President Obama's sleepwalk during the first one.  But none of the three shed much light on where we could go as a country with tremendous resources in a world in which so many people live such desperate lives. The debates unfortunately were pretty indicative of the sad state of our political discourse.  While defining our relationship with the world from the perspective of our 'self-interest' is understandable.  It sounds like our 'self-interest' is viewed from both an isolationist and interventionist point of view.  We distance ourselves and jump in only in terms of what we call our national security.

For example, last night neither participant engaged the state of the European Union and the economic implications.  They both wanted to make cases for the domestic economy, but except for Romney's fear that we are going to become Greece, little was said that would underscore the sense that we are all global citizens.  Some sense of responsibility for the world was eluded to but little 'with' the world in developing a global society.

I'm sure being a 'global citizen' does not track with a 'me first' relationship to life. The polls don't reflect well when we're not talking about our own personal issues.   But it serves none of us when those running for president cater to our basest (not basic) desires.  The assumption is that the "I" is where our self-understanding begins and ends.  A 'self' as a 'relationship' isn't on the radar. An understanding that all a human being is his or her relationships does not compute when we push such an isolated individualistic point of departure.

During the past month, much of my time has been spent in 'relationship' with my mother-in-law. (a clumsy phrase that does not communicate in any way my connection with Lorene who I have known now for 50 plus years).  I've been involved in her move from Kansas to Wisconsin and all the tiny details that make up such a move, from renting trailers to spending hours on-line or on the phone to update Social Security addresses, health care etc.

I have shocked myself with waking up and realizing how much I enjoy this relationship.   All that minutiae and 'stuff' that one has to do energized me, if not always perfect or fun.  I have to admit that it was mostly an important experience for me.  I am who I am as this 'relationship' which is Lorene played itself out.   That is my identity and how I play it out, ie. accept it and live it, is part and parcel of my life.  Multiply that by all my other relationships and one begins to get a sense of who Rick Deines is.

The future is made up of the way we relate to the relationships we are.  This is as true of a nation as it is of individuals.  How we talk about the connections we have with Mexico or China or Greece defines us.  The bluster that passes for American exceptionalism is not useful.  To say that we have always treated other nations in a respectful way is not apologizing for who we are.  It is simply recognizing that  for effective diplomacy to happen, a 'relational' understanding of who we are is the truth.  The triumphalism of being American (the U.S. brand) is not strength in relationship.

I try not to be naive about terrorists and the kind of violence that I cannot imagine.  I can't overlook that divide across the world between the haves and have nots.  I do think that the United States can play an important and perhaps unique role in dealing with the challenges facing the world.  I think we best do this, however, from a posture that communicates care and concern and goes the second mile.  We can afford that.  We are the 'richest' country in the world. We are also the world.  We are interdependent.  Love of neighbor is not limited to those we like. All that goes on in every corner of the world is in a relational sense who we are.  That may be 'the heart of the matter.'

How Much Does It Matter?

I’m not sure any of ‘it’ matters. Of course,’ it’ does, but what is the’ it?’  In this case, I think the ‘it’ is the ongoing, repressive conditioning of the U.S. American public that suggests that the balance of history hangs with the Obama-Romney election.

My difficulty with how our political system works is many fold, but fundamentally I see nothing in the decision in this election that gets any where near connecting with the lives of the majority of the neighbors that make up the American public.

Something doesn’t ring true when I get angry with a friend because they put up a Romney-Ryan sign in their front yard.  That simply cannot define my relationships. And yet I allow it.  I have to be ‘talked down.‘   And that is symptomatic of something much more important.   I can choose to reduce my life to this kind of silliness or seek another way.

In my mind nothing short of a foundational shift in the narrative of who we are as a nation, as a people gets close to what is needed.  

Many people in their guts, have a sense of what quality of life looks like.  They may not be conscious of it, or able to articulate it.  They may out of frustration give in to the rhetoric of one of the political parties.  They may run for cover and isolate themselves in their families.  They may find solace in some religious expression or sports franchise.  But given the chance, they could give us all insights into what a healthy community might look like.  I think most people want more, not stuff, more meaning.

“Divide and conquer” has always been the strategy of those with power versus the common citizen.  Instead of united communities we have division after division. Split the African-Americans and Europeans and Latinos and Asians.  Divide gays-lesbians from straights.  Clarify how immigrants today are ‘aliens’ but in earlier times they were ‘courageous seekers of freedom’  Demonize the Christian right or the Socialists. Stake a  claim that Republicans are more ‘American’ than Democrats or vice-versa.  How is any of that beneficial?  It creates a lot of anger and guilt and a lot of impossibility.

This is not understood by politicians. They owe too much to too many to get close to the ‘heart of the matter.’  The 1% vs. the 99% is not just an economic metaphor.  It also speaks to what percentage of the population makes decisions for the rest of us, the voting booth not withstanding.

With my involvement in more and more conversations with persons from a variety of political and religious persuasions, I’m pretty sure there is a better understanding out there than we will ever know if we simply accept the way things are.

It is understood, in part,  by the citizen who is seeking ways to financially support her family. 

It is understood, in part, by the parent who is trying to figure out what if any difference it makes to fight for effective education from pre-school through grad school (as well as technical training).  My car mechanic has a son who runs a ‘tool and die’ operation flooded with orders from China, but can’t find qualified workers.

It is understood, in part,  by the friend who doesn’t have insurance and can’t afford to have a hip surgery he needed years ago until he qualifies for Medicaid. True story (he has about 8 month to go.)

It is understood, in part, by the neighbor who sees the quality of life diminished because of home foreclosures leading to blocks of vacant houses that become the locus of drugs and the stimulus for violence. She doesn’t want to raise her kids that way, but.....

The narrative that I’m talking about is a narrative of community.  The politicians talk about ‘the American people’, they do not talk about our identify as a community and as communities within a community.  Little is said about social responsibility and interconnectedness. Virtually nothing is said about individual responsibility.

Political campaigns try to convince us that there are good positions taken by one or other of the parties.   So they pit what are thought to be different points of view, like,  is the government too big or too small, to tax or not to tax, protectionism or not, shipping jobs overseas or keeping them at home, public schools or school choice, job creators or welfare dependents.......and on and on.

See what I mean by ‘not sure any of it matters.  Of course it does....’  I don’t think we’re any where close to having a national and local conversation about who we want to be as a society.  And when we do, we distance it from the bread and butter, life and death concerns of our citizens.

Our forum for discussion does not provide for wide spread grassroots participation.  The  forum is dominated by money, period.  That is our narrative.  We cooperate with that narrative by defining meaning with our participation as consumers.  Not many of us want to change the choices that come with the existing narrative, ie. its’s all out there and if you want it bad enough and work hard enough, you, too, can have it.

Our opportunity to shift that narrative is as close as each of us, as one has put it, the main question is, ‘what kind of human being do you want to be?’  Extended outward that same question concerns family, neighborhood, city, nation and globe.  

Change that matters will come to the degree that vision and responsibility can be embraced and implemented.  There are those who are moving in that direction. Joining with them is an option.

Let’s not be deceived.  That is the predominant value in our lives.  That is our ‘god.’ That is our religion.  That is the ‘heart of the matter.’ Is it?

Sharing Important Stuff with our Grandchildren

Campaigning candidates desperate for another way to get our vote seem intent on using the 'grandkids' as a motivator.  "We don't want to pass on these problems to our grandkids do we?  Gee, I guess not, so I'll vote for you! Another thing I don't have to worry about.   Of course it's a ploy to somehow get us to be even more uncritical than we already are regarding our politics, but it has got me thinking about what I would like my 4 grandkids to know about life.  Grandad would like to tell you a story!

But I find I need your help.  My first shot at answering that question was not good enough to share with anyone.  My list was too abstract, too preachy, and not the stuff that any of my grandkids would likely read.  I'm not after 'cute', let Hallmark do that or someone with more imagination. It doesn't have to be in kid's format, although maybe someday.  It just has to be truthful and helpful and not nasty or a rant to make me feel better.

I know I want my grandkids to be critical thinkers and ethical actors.  I want them to think for themselves as a result of being wide-open to the great insights of people past and present as well as those who think about the future.  I don't want my grandkids to be warped by the dominance of the economic myth.  Warped views of money, sex and power destroy, dominate and are always, always, always present and incredibly tempting.

I would like them to have stories, mythologies, and even hero figures that can sustain and inform and continue to teach them about the need to distinguish reality from illusion.   I want them to choose from the myriad of life giving possibilities, forms of culture like dance, drama,  literature, music, and even sport that keep one mentally and physically strong.

I want them to have a deep appreciation for difference, to not fear it and to feel themselves growing as they become involved with people and  engaged by ideas from a variety of cultures and perspectives.  I want them to 'love people', but not in some naive way that overlooks the weaknesses we all have.   Can everyone have the opportunity to travel?  Perhaps not, but for many people it is a key ingredient in changing perspective.  And so is reading.  Think Harry Potter.

I want them to have an education that is informed by the most creative edge existing.  I do not want them to buy into views of life that are clearly not only at odds with scientific insight, but are simply wrong, not in intent by those hold those views, but wrong in fact.  I want them always to be the one who is responsible in some way in every situation, without guilt,  and to know responsibility exercised as freedom in community.

I want them to cherish living, embrace all of creation, and sense a kinship with neighbors near and far.  This may help them choose the deep values of relationships over the superficial value of things.

You see how hard this is!  Help me out here!.  What are the three (you can go as high as ten or twelve if you have them) 'things', 'insights', 'values' you want for your grandchildren.  If you don't have grandchildren, just ask yourself what is so important to you as a human being that you really want others to look there for guidance.  To shift the context a bit, "what did you know and when did you know it?"  This is a work forever in progress.  Please contribute.

Our Time is 'Ragtime'

My yearly pilgrimage with my wife Dixie to see plays at the Shaw Festival at Niagara-on-the Lake, Ontario continues to be an important engaging creative time in my life.  I was only vaguely familiar with the E.L. Doctorow novel, 'Ragtime' that inspired one play that I saw this year.

"Ragtime, the Musical is an example of American myth-making a it most alluring, ambitious and artful, particularly when we consider that nothing less than America's collective dream is at stake."--Paula Uruburu, 'Myth America', 2012.

'Ragtime' is our time.  2012 America is not just uneven, it is ruptured.  We are not just divided we are separated.  E Pluribus Unum, out of many one does not reflect the reality of our times.  The dream we claim as our uniqueness, our 'myth', our story of who we are is being re-written, but not is a way that reflects our basic values.  It is being re-written not as one, but as many as individualism trumps being in this together.

The early 1900's was a time of ups and downs in America.  It was a ragged time. For the well-healed having achieved the 'American Dream' it was a threatening time.  Newer immigrants came to the shores in the millions.  Many arrived with nothing yet looked to America as a promise of a better day for them and their families.  Others, primarily Americans of African and slave descent had worked here for generations, yet were still regarded as less than second class citizens.  To them it was a time of continuing disappointment and anger nevertheless they hang on to a thread of hope that good 'men' would do the right thing by them, advocate for justice.  Anarchy, communism and the few rich gave rise to discontent, protest and movements seeking not overthrow but equality of opportunity.

It was over 125 years since the dream of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' based on a law that treated everyone equally had been the hope of every citizen.  Yet, to many it seemed further away than it had ever been.

A musical form emerged that countered the despair and pessimism of the times.  'Ragtime' as a musical type provided melodies that sought to include the gifts of all music, classical(Dvorak), the marching music of Jon Phillip Sousa, and the new arrangements by Scott Joplin and others.  Important ingredients of various American cultures were represented.  The dream received articulation in song. The possibility of a new 'myth of America' could be played and heard in an art form.

We need an American myth that captures for our time the dream of this nation.  A new American myth will not automatically come from electing whomever we thing is the 'right' candidate.  I, for one, see President Obama as the better choice this time around.  However, as a friend of mine says, whoever wins, we have a lot of work to do.  It's time for a new dream.

We seem to be drawn to dreams of a divided America.   The 'Occupy Movement', perhaps having had its say already, spoke of the "1% and the 99%" being re-balanced.   Candidate Romney speaks of the '47%' of us who have changed the dream into an unmotivated existence of dependency and victimism. 'God bless America.'  Any future that begins with 'us' and 'them' is not one with legs.

The dream that attracts me is one that emphasizes the 'us' the 'we' as one, as united, as community.  To move that direction I think of the possible. It is possible to engage our citizens through millions of conversations taking place around tables and in circles from our families, neighborhoods, clubs, groups, churches to our elected leaders.  These conversations will focus on the role and responsibility of citizenship.  The dream will become new because citizenship will be re-invented and community will come from the connections of all involved in the process.

Leadership that can assist in the dream will articulate such a vision and provide encouragement for all Americans to invest in that future.  That investment will include the opportunity for employment in building a new America through the needed infrastructure, health care, education, housing and environment.  The jobs created in this dream can be identified in these areas and we can begin to choose what role each of us will play vocationally, in our civic life and in our families.  Part of the American dream is the real opportunity to teach, to heal, to think,  to design, to build and  to create.

While I do not think that history is cyclical, 'what goes around, comes around', these times feel like 'Ragtime' to me.  Fear drives the creation of new myths of who we are and who we want to be.  This is a time when I wish I were a musician or playwright so I could more creatively participate in this process.  But I can be in conversation with family, friends and neighbors.  And when I am, I can inquire about how we can share our gifts in our 'ragtime' and live the melody that suggests.

The New B and B: Beer and Bicycle

By brewing beer and rewarding employees with bicycles, New Belgium Brewing Company in Ft. Collins, Colorado is one model of a company that supports the sustainability of  both its employees and the environment.

I've had family in Ft. Collins since the early 1900's, so my ears perked up at this interview.  As she spells out her philosophy it becomes clear that responsible citizenship is the face of her company.  It's a refreshing way to view business, one that can be embraced by so called 'pro' and 'anti' business forces.

Kim Jordan is the CEO.  You may have enjoyed Fat Tire, their signature brew. You can listen to the 4 minute interview with Ms. Jordan  at:
 <http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/npr.php?id=160697491>

In her interview with Audie Cornish, Ms.  Jordan stayed focussed on  the value of business rather than playing a partisan political card.  As she presents it, business, NB in particular, does not operate separate from the community  just because it needs to make money to be viable..  Rather it is a partner in building community with an emphasis on sustaining people, their families and communities and the environment.

Politics and policy enter the conversaton when she looks at which political candidates share her vision and practice.  The beer industry is highly regulated, but she does not oppose useful regulation. On future tax policies that some claim would hurt small business, her opposition to being taxed is not automatic.  Risk, including projecting the impact of taxes is part of the process.   And, she added, “to whom much is given much is required.”

Given the current discussion of 'I built that' versus 'we built it' , her most telling comments include her recognition that to create and distribute New Belgium’s product, many, many hard-working, dedicated people have to work together in a collective way.  Profits, she believes,  should go the people that do the work and re-invest in the company as well as to the ‘outside’ investors who often provide capital necessary to launch and advance the business. But her contention and commitment is that outsiders do not receive an unfair proportion of the profits.   Kim Jordan knows that ‘we’re in this together’ and that community well being trumps the profit motive.

That may be the heart of the matter.  If New Belgium didn’t make money and create jobs, the discussion might be different.  They made $140 million last year.  The implication that somehow successful business and quality of life for the whole community are not deeply inter-related is based on a different model for community.

A business can BE the healthy community that sustains families and gives back to its community.

It’s been several years since I toured New Belgium Brewery in Ft. Collins.  It was the new kid on the block then and Fat Tire was its brand.  You could only buy it in Colorado and not nationally for a number of years.  But in those early days what made New Belgium special is what makes it strong today, a commitment to sustainability, employee participation in investment and profits, and to an esprit de corps that engages everyone in running the business.

After the tour I asked an employee about a very cool retro bicycle, the one pictured on the Fat Tire label.  He said come and work here a year and we’ll give you one.  I’m never quite sure why I didn’t. I loved that bike!  My favorite NB beer is called 1557, a dark Belgian special.  B and B.  Especially on warm days, it doesn't get much better.

** I was born in Fort Collins, Colorado.  Even though we moved 40 miles north to Cheyenne, Wyoming when I was 4, my parents had 12 brothers and sisters each!  Ft. Collins was ‘Brunz-Deines’ country for many years. I've been to 'Collins' a hundred times and have fond memories of the streetcars, the American theater with its cartoons, newsreels and cowboy double features.  My mom, with her 18 month old (me) in tow had just seen “Gone With the Wind”  there when the news about Pearl Harbor was announced.  Poudre Valley Creamery had the best milkshakes in the world and Colorado A & M (a college of 1500 students, now Colorado State University with 50, 000) was a place for getting a glimpse of a more diverse world. Our family picnics at City Park were the stuff of today’s community festivals. (figure it out with 51 first cousins.) A highly competitive softball game would end the day's festivities.

We Need Dr. King--a model of civility

I walk past the Mystery and Fiction sections in the Milwaukee Public Library. I’m looking for a Scottish mystery.  I’m in a hurry.   I’m parked in a 15 minute zone out front. And then it happened......The King Center Imaging Project.

Up pops a 15’ by 15’ enclosed exhibit about Martin Luther King Jr.  And it’s not even February (Black History Month) or April 4th (King’s death.) It is, however, the 49th anniversary of the March on Washington and the “I Have a Dream Speech.”   But,  I’d not heard of this exhibit.  Little or no publicity.   And this is its last of three days here.

Only one other person is examining the exhibit, but I am eagerly pursued and then welcomed by a young man  who explains the options, and there are many, for interacting with Dr. King, the Movement, his family and friends, and the times.   You pull out drawers and examine  ‘sermons’, ‘speeches’, ‘family life’ etc.  There are visual projections of Dr. King speaking and a half-dozen computers geared to take you to any of a dozen different aspects of his life.  They emphasize his childhood, education, church and community involvement, and, of course, his principle contribution as leader of the Civil Rights Movement.

I circled the exhibit catching bits and pieces of things he had said. Then I was gradually drawn closer and closer to his writings, his letters--both personal and public--and his speeches and sermons.

I simply was blown away. Awestruck.  And this is not the first time I have been encountered and moved by Dr. King.  I have to take account of this once more.  I participated in Dr. King’s Chicago march protesting the Vietnam War, cheered him at the packed houses of Chicago’s Southside black churches, and felt a small, but important part of this history in the making.  More recently I have read some of his writings, the biographies by Taylor Branch, and shake my head at the gradual watering down of his message.

Adding to the struggle, is that this significant exhibit is ‘An Initiative of JP Morgan Chase and Co.’  Yes, that’s Jamie Dimon’s money.  How hard it is to have clean hands.  Impossible, even.

Nevertheless, however the message of truth and clarity came, it came, again.  I have been thinking about what ‘history of the United States‘ I want my grandchildren to know.  I definitely want them to know about the slave trade, slavery, the removal of Native Americans to make room for the rest of us, the genius of the men and women who did create the American system and the Civil War over slavery.  I want them to know about Reconstruction (a return to a more subtle slavery), I want them to know of the participation of African-Americans and Native Americans in defending the United States in its wars,  I want them to know about the Great Depression, and  about the unknown and known military men and women of the two great  World Wars, and I want them to know about Dr. King and the Civil Rights Movement.  Of course there is more.  And there is context.  But there are key events that have shaped our country more than others.  And perhaps none more than the Civil Rights Movement led and taught by Dr. King.

I do not want these true stories of our history to be either forgotten or stuck in the quagmire of the game we see acted by public officials now to avoid the truth. I mean the  ‘everyone has a right to their own facts’ debates.  Neither do I  want to deflect the deep reality of these facts by turning them into guilt trips about racism--the facts are plain enough.  They need telling but not enhancing or sermonizing. 

In my next ‘blog’ I intend to point to the things I learned, again, at the exhibit today.  Things that give me a model of clear thinking, not just about 49 years ago, but about today.  I am convinced that Dr. King’s greatness lies in both his courageous leadership, but also in the timeless and the straightforward truth telling that is so lacking today even in the leaders whom I admire and will vote for.  Now is the time to advocate for an emphasis in education that is about history (historical accuracy to the best of our ability) and justice (placing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness within the reach of all.) 

'Prominent' Voices Alter Reality

" I do not see how we will get beyond it (polarization) unless some very prominent voices speak out - or unless we can develop a network of voices to which people will listen."

I received this response after I posted some comments on a 'Beyond Polarization' dialogue project. What particularly struck me is the phrase 'prominent voices.'  Who are they and how can we get them to speak out to overcome this polarization?  Are prominent persons those in the public sphere who can speak out and hopefully be heard more readily than you or I?  Are we part of that 'network' referred to in the second half of the lead in quote?

Two 'prominent' people who have made a good effort to use their positions in this way are Sen. Dale Schultz (Republican) and Sen. Tim Cullen (Democrat) who serve through the Wisconsin legislature in Madison.  They offer an alternative vision for Wisconsin politics to that being represented at the Republican convention.

Wisconsin is on the national political map for having Gov. Scott Walker emerge as a Republican hero, Reince Priebus chairing the RNC and now, of course, Paul Ryan being the nominee for Vice-President. It may or may not be unprecedented, but it identifies Wisconsin as a state that is moving rapidly to the right and in a position to influence the national political reality. More 'balance' (a lot more) is needed.

Little known, I'm guessing, is the effort of these two Wisconsin state senators to actively construct a new kind of conversation that brings civil conversation to the fore.  Schultz is from the Western part of the state and Cullen, who interestingly graduated from the same Janesville Craig High School as Paul Ryan.  Craig is also the alma mater of recently defeated Senator Russ Feingold, perhaps the last of the 'old-time' liberals.  I must visit Janesville sometime.  And Priebus is 'just down the road' 71 miles from Janesville is Kenosha.  All that 'prominence' from tiny southeast Wisconsin!  Take that East and West coast! Whoops, forget that, "build bridges, cross aisles, don't stereotype."  It's hard.  But these guys are giving it a good shot.

Schultz and Cullen began about a year ago to put forth a bi-partisan image.  They travelled the state having forums during which they acknowledged differences, but emphasized what kinds of things they could work together on for the citizens of the State of Wisconsin.  This included issues dealing with the environment, health care, and especially the business environment and changing the direction of the economy.

The citizen response to them has been muted.  Nevertheless, they continue to go public in a bi-partisan way and there are some indications that others in power positions are watching, listening, and perhaps moving a bit themselves to connect better with those who seem to be on opposite sides.

I think it's important that they hear from us that 'we want what they're having.' ( a play on "When Harry Met Sally")

Here is a link to a news story describing their recent activity.
http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/local/green_bay/both-sides-civility-in-government

By supporting these 'prominent' legislators in creating a third way, we can be part of a network of persons across the country who directly advocate for more of the 'Schultz-Cullen' dream.  Identify potential partners in your local and state government and provide the 'Schultz-Cullen' model as a place to begin.

May the other guys from Janesville be as encouraging.

http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/local/green_bay/both-sides-civility-in-government

Email your supportive word to:

Dale Schultz:  senatordaleschultz.com

Tim Cullen: legis.wisconsin.gov/w3asp/contact/legislatorpages.aspx?

Healthy Relationships

There is an apocryphal account of a guy who puts a billboard on a little traveled road that spells out in twenty foot letters S-E-X. The story goes that within days the volume of traffic skyrocketed and the accident rate increased substantially.  This story emerged during the nascent 'sexual revolution' of the 1960's so today's public may not be so susceptible.  Nevertheless, S-E-X can still be an attention grabber.  You can depend on some sex-related outrage surrounding the political conventions.  And sex abuse in families, churches and schools is a pretty serious matter.   Sex is as American as well...

So hope the backers of two current films, "Hope Springs" and "Your Sister's Sister." I assume 'Hope' is going for a good portion of the 55 plus age group while 'Sister' aims a generation or two younger. The story lines are driven by exploring relationships based on sexual attraction or alienation.

These are good hearted stories that will be enjoyed by a wide-range of audiences.  The first, 'Hope', follows a couple, married 31 years, from their repetitive, hum drum existence in Omaha to a week long intensive marriage therapy session in Great Hope Springs, Maine.   Kay (Meryl Streep) basically drags Albert  (Tommy Lee Jones) to the therapist hoping to save the marriage.  Ms. Streep and Mr. Jones are among the class actors of our time.  'Your Sister's" is a three-some (or something). Three 30-ish young people, linked by friendship and kinship, are each in their own ways lost and alone.  Iris(Emily Blunt), Jack(Mark Duplass) and Hannah(Rosemarie DeWitt) work well in difficult roles. They end up together in an isolated retreat hideaway on Puget Sound.  Maine and the Puget Sound provide beautiful natural landscapes, the kind of places we go for 'healing'.

Each of the five primary characters is  out to find a cure for their empty spirits so that life can go on.  Albert and Kay have drifted way apart and need a major intervention to re-discover and re-ignite the passion that first birthed their love.  Or not.  In 'Sister'  the death of Jack's brother has left him in a year long funk.  He can only be angry.  He can't bring himself to tell Iris that he loves her.  Iris mourns her lack of courage to openly admit that she loves Jack.  Hannah, the sister,  has just left a 7-year lesbian relationship. No one of them has anything else in their lives that seems to matter.  They are stuck trying to wade through the relative complexities of their connects and disconnects, but have a tiny prism to look through.

Why does S-E-X so dominate the meaning of their lives?  Our lives?  (I'm going to take a break now to 'delete' the 75--no kidding--e-mails that come daily to get me to buy viagra or look at available partners) Is this the 'heart of the matter?'   Albert and Kay's Omaha  a 1950's kind of gender stereotyping of couples in their 60's probably exists.  The 'cluelessness' is funny, but pretty sad this late in the game.  I've heard that most of Omaha has been liberated.   And even if you go to the center of Puget Sound to work on your life, there must be other things that interest one after 25 years living in Seattle, often mentioned as one of the 'ten best places to live' in the U.S.   Isn't life more than getting one's sex lives straight?  Is our obsession another way we think we can at least have control over something?  The power of sex and the many ways it informs our lives is not to be minimized.  We've done harmful things to ourselves and others because openness and honesty have not been my or our strong suit in discussing it.   These films bring a healthy perspective that is accessible to many of us.  Persons near my age in 'Sister' laughed like school kids enjoying a guilty pleasure.  Maybe if we were more open, the pre-occupation would lessen and we could be about other things as well.  Films can be a context for that conversation.

Beyond Polarization

We had waited a long time for this event to actually take place other than in our imaginations.  As part of a group sponsoring a public conversation named "Beyond Polarization", we were excited.  Some would say that no time in U.S. history has the population been more polarized.  I'm not sure where the years surrounding the Civil War, the long divisions over slavery, or possibly the Vietnam War fit in here.  Those were pretty divided times.  Some lasting effects of all of those divisions seems to have survived.  So to proclaim our time as the most polarized may be a stretch.  Last evening, the "Beyond Polarization" conversation began with a short presentation of charts and graphs and numbers which suggest that if polarization is pointing to hard line separation,  our divisions are serious.  And they will be there after the elections this November.  They may even become wider and deeper.  Welcome to the doomsday scenario.   Somebody is clearly out to get us (I don't know how to put a smiley face at the end of this comment.)  The planning team's wait has been dominated by our hope that of the twenty people we expected that the divide in our country would be represented.  Thankfully our hope was accompanied by some very hard work by the event coordinator--the work of one-on-one conversations, of approaching groups and individuals from across the political spectrum.  Of the twenty, I had five in a small group for which I provided facilitation of discussion of the experience and meaning of 'polarization.'  That was typical of the four small groups.  We had succeeded in the recruitment phase. By guiding a 'neutral' facilitation method, I sat on my emotions as the group introduced their Tea Party, Libertarian, Independent choices.   Not one claimed either of the two dominant parties. But FINALLY we had the opportunity to explore polarization with real people with very different points of view. We had racial, gender, and age mixes--not anyone really younger than 40.  The conversation was certainly civil and passionate. Emotions and strong feelings or definite opinions weren't spared, but were shared with respect.  The issues of concern were local and national.  The key agreement among the group is that information comes at us at lightning speed and we have limited tools to evaluate the facts.  Information is more likely heard as support or opposition of a point of view we already hold.  The relationship to the sources of information are not built on trust and there is a sense that someone else is controlling the game for their own purposes.  We hope to follow up with this task.  I have done similar groups, with less opposing views, however, for many years.  I am always a little frustrated by the lack of resolution or sense of a common commitment.  The participants are courageous and insightful regardless of their persuasion.  We avoid 'next step' talk because we don't have a program or a vehicle to channel the energy.  We only now how to work together when we agree.  What is it that we can agree upon that will focus the energy and passion we have for overcoming the great divide that we live in?  Is it citizenship as Parker Palmer suggests?  I like that.  How do we insert that into the conversation process without circumventing the necessary discovery and sharing of our own experience that has led us to this point?  Perhaps that is the heart of the matter!