August/September
We
Need a Mass Movement of People Like You
Bill Moyers
Is
Fox News Biased?
The Center for American Progress
In
Praise of Unruly Women
Arianna Huffington
Returning
From War: A Family Affair
Shri Estes
Healing
Our World From the Inside Out
Carol Hwoschinsky
From
Hurt to Heart: Healing Conflict at its Roots
Eryn Kalish
Are
We In Danger Right Now?
Peter Moore, MFCC, CGP
Our
Clean-Energy Birthright
Jeane Manning
The
Organic Foods Movement
Paul Cienfuegos
Genetically
Engineered Foods May Pose A Health Risk
Jeffrey M. Smith
Sacred
Menstruation
Julie Gauss, CCH
Shifting
Into a New Era of Peace and Harmony
John Darling
Cosmic
Calendar
Salina Rain
Deborah
Mokma, Editor
It’s rare for most of us to really communicate with others whose opinions differ from our own, even concerning issues which affect us all—like the economy, the environment, education, foreign policy. Since most of us tend to label each other according to political affiliation or belief systems, the assumption is often made that we already know what the other person’s opinions will be, which prevents us from really hearing what the other is saying.
During the last election cycle I received a telephone call from a local volunteer who was taking a poll. When she asked if I would answer a few questions, my response was that I would need to hear the questions first, before deciding whether or not I could answer them. In addition to the question of whether I would be voting for a specific candidate, the choice of answers for the other three questions were all classically either/or, black or white. One of the questions was “Which do you think is more important—jobs or the environment?”
I said I couldn’t answer the questions as they were worded, but asked if I could explain in detail how I felt, although I knew she couldn’t use my answers in the official tally. She agreed, and listened quietly while I shared my heartfelt observations concerning the decades of unsustainable logging that have taken place in Jackson County. I spoke of the merchantable trees that had already been taken, leaving only a small amount of old growth forest, devastated ecosystems, and the prospects of few, if any, jobs in the woods for the next generation. I went on to say that it was outside interests—large corporations—who had come in and created this situation, reaping most of the profits from the public’s resources, and that by allowing these same outside forces to continue to wreak havoc on the last remaining stands of old growth trees we would have a bleak future with no jobs in the woods for our community. Then I talked about other options—like creating jobs in resource management, forest restoration, and environmentally sound value added enterprises—and pointed out how these sustainable approaches would better serve our community and our families for generations to come.
When I finished speaking, the caller observed that I must have given much thought to this topic and thanked me for providing her with new information to consider.
I was elated. Whether or not I had changed her mind was inconsequential. Having been open to hearing my point of view, she was able to receive it without judgment. Because she heard me speaking to our shared concern for the future of our community, she may now consider new possibilities.
In her article on compassionate listening (page 16), Carol Hwoschinsky, who is the Training Director for The Compassionate Listening Project, provides us with her insight into ways to achieve this kind of deep connection with each other. And we are pleased to introduce a new question and answer column by Eryn Kalish in this issue (page 17). Eryn’s experience in conflict resolution and compassionate listening will enable her to provide readers with suggestions for positive ways to approach conflict in their lives.
By learning to deeply listen to others, while at the same time honoring our differences, overcoming the current polarization will be possible. Imagine what the world will be like when more of us are consciously communicating in this way.
With so much misinformation circulating via the mainstream media, it’s no wonder polarization in the US is at an all time high. Polls taken of “likely voters” leave out the 50% of the population that didn’t vote in previous elections. Pollsters slant their results with the wording of the questions being asked. News reports can also slant the results to fit their own ideology, like when Fox News’ own polls showed that 69 percent of Americans believed the economy under Bush was either “fair” or “poor,” yet Fox correspondent Carl Cameron reported “polls show that the public prefers the Republican economic approach over that of Democrats.” (See more about Fox News coverage on page 10).
Another way that the media manipulates is by omission. What is not reported is many times more important than what is. According to Jeffrey Smith, Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, “In Europe, Japan, and other regions, the press has been far more open about the potential dangers of genetic manipulation. Consequently, foreign consumers demanded that their food supply be GM-free and manufacturers have responded. But in the US, most people believe they have never eaten a GM food ... while most actually eat them daily. Lacking awareness, complacent consumers have been the key support for the biotech industry in the US.”
A prime example of this kind of omission is a report released by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) last July, which I doubt saw any coverage in US mainstream media. The NAS report stated that the current system of blanket approval of GM foods by the FDA might not detect “unintended changes in the composition of the food.” The process of gene insertion, according to the NAS, could damage the host’s DNA with unpredicted consequences. India’s Council of Medical Research, which released its findings a few days earlier, identified a long list of potentially dangerous side effects from GM foods that are not being evaluated, and called for a complete overhaul of existing regulations. Fortunately, paving the way for the rest of the US are Mendocino County, California, where a citizen’s initiative has banned the growing of genetically engineered crops, plants and animals within their borders, and Humboldt, Butte, Marin and San Luis Obispo Counties where similar initiatives are on this fall’s ballot. For more on the dangers of genetically modified foods see page 21.
A new organization, Let’s Talk America (www.letstalkamerica.org), is bringing people together in dialogue with the premise that “what unites us is more than we realize and what divides us is less than we fear.” By having real conversations with those who we think we have little in common we will soon find that we agree on more than we disagree on. That we all want a healthy future for our children and grandchildren. That we would like to enter our golden years without having to worry about healthcare and the cost of living. That we’d rather see more money spent on education so we’ll need to spend less on prisons.
There is a movement in this country for real dialogue, real change, and a positive future for all. When we work together, all things are possible.
