Archive for the 'Cassandra file' Category

Pandemic panic conflict

Published
by
Deborah
on November 1, 2009
in Cassandra file
. 0 Comments

Hospital administrators and public health officials are sleeping somewhat better knowing that they have flu pandemic plans in place. While there may or may not be a deadly H1N1 pandemic, with climate changes will come other diseases that will each bring its own scares. It’s good to have a plan in place against pathogens. The plans developed for the last flu scare dealt lightly with policies for such items as who gets what in which order of priority.

Pandemic planning seems to depend on the expectations that patients, families and loved ones will accept decisions about priority for treatment. If so, is this a reasonable expectation? It is foreseeable that not all people will do as they are told, especially when they are frightened and ill. 

Do pandemic plans take into account the conflict that comes with fear of scarce resources and the frantic desire to get a share? Is there an appeal mechanism, place for advocacy to have someone bumped up the priority scale, or process for the patient who argues with the ranking given? Where is the plan for dealing with people who refuse the ranking that might mean death for a child, spouse, parent, or friend? What are the provisions for when the three-person team making the ranking decisions cannot agree? Is there a void in the plan, or is the plan just silent on how decision makers plan to keep the peace by keeping patients in their place?

Conflict creates hard choices, even when decisions, policies and plans are ethically and scientifically based. If the planners believe that science and medicine will deal with the conflicts their plans create, they are mistaken. In each pandemic plan should be conflict management strategies and training for the daily dramas that come with staff shortages, contagion fears, dread of disease, burn-out of those who are filling in, stress related illness, and too little of everything. At the very least, those making the treatment ranking decisions must have strategies and training for resolving the conflicts that will almost certainly arise during their decision-making.

Conflict Prevention?

Published
by
Deborah
on June 30, 2009
in Cassandra file
. 0 Comments

The recent report that there is a massive disproportion of boy children over girl children in some countries confirms what has been known for a while. Preference for male heirs has put the lives of baby girls at risk. This has been deplored for all the reasons of law, morality, equal rights, human security and responsibility to protect life.

Another reason to deplore sex selection however it occurs, does not get spoken of very much but it is chilling. When countries have a critical mass of young unmarried men, with no hope of achieving the successful mating and parenting that sentient beings are hard-wired to seek, the common outcome is that those countries may go to war with their neighbours. A surplus of single men between the ages of 18 and 35 has been linked as a factor in starting wars.

For all of the correct moral and ethical choices, the fate of these girl babies must be a priority. For all of the hopes of social change leading to world peace, this situation must be addressed now.

Perfect Storm, Perfect Opportunity

Published
by
Deborah
on November 25, 2008
in Cassandra file
. 0 Comments

Sometimes, the stars align. As 2008 closes on a low note, let’s not forget that change is born in turbulence.

At the mega-scale, there’s the economic crisis, global climate change, ongoing war, and a new regime in America. At the micro-scale, it translates into worry about personal finances, different decisions about lifestyles, public condemnation of those who believe differently, and leadership under scrutiny to do something.  

Let’s be honest. If times were good, we would want more of the same. Same economics. Same politics. Same relationships. Hard times create the chance to fix things that are wrong.

Finally, we are hearing: 

  • talk of re-making the economy as if the environment mattered; 
  • politicians admit we need to talk across the political divide to create a united effort; 
  • interest in finding educational and social change alternatives to war;  
  • that leading means being visionary as well as being pragmatic. 

It’s awful that people are getting beaten up financially. It will be even more awful if we don’t use this convergence of turbulent events to create a better, more sustainable future.  

Talking with the enemy

Published
by
Deborah
on November 16, 2008
in Cassandra file
. 0 Comments

President-elect Obama advocating the politics of hope and caring communities in times of crisis has triggered imaginations around the globe. What captured my imagination was something he said that was written off as a sign of naivety. He said he is prepared to talk to those who are perceived to be enemies to the developed world. For this he was ridiculed and scorned. 

Peace is created through talk. This does not mean stupid give-it-all-away negotiation.  It means talk that strengthens understanding, creates relationships for the future, and explores options for co-existence. It may also include warning talk, power talk, exchange talk, and transformational talk.

Not talking means no learning and no change. Refusing to talk suggests fear of what might happen. In today’s warfare, no one wins and the war ends when people decide to quit fighting. Then they have to talk.

Does it make some sense to talk first?

Interconnecting Peace, Environment, Safety, Health

Published
by
Deborah
on October 19, 2008
in Cassandra file
. 0 Comments

18 October, 2008.

Everything really is connected to everything else. 

Kathy and Nina, dear friends, colleagues, teachers, and mentors to many, were married in a Quaker meeting in Toronto. As wonderful as the wedding was, as happy as we all were to bear witness to their joy, perhaps the best part was the reception. Kathy and Nina are involved in so much that is making the world a better place. Their circle of friends includes people who gave up corporate jobs to try to save the world.

One stimulating, inspiring, and hopeful conversation at the Friends Meeting House involved people from the environmental , the peace, the youth criminal justice, and the health movements, and a commercial pilot. Disparate though we were, as we discussed our visions of the society we want, we had a shared belief that relationships are at the core of each of our visions. The relationships we envision are peaceful, sustainable, safe, and healthy.

We concluded that if every relationship has those characteristics of peace, sustainability, safety and health, then the world will too.

There are steps we can and must take to achieve this vision. Those steps are possible if we have the collective will.

The environment supports and sustains us, so our actions locally and globaly must support and sustain the environment.  

To continue this sustainable cycle that keeps us alive, requires peace.

If we live in peace and have a sustainable environment that supports us, we will be healthier in mind, body, and spirit.

If we are healthier in mind, body, and spirit, we will have improved capacities to keep our communities safe.

If our communities are safe, we will not need to fear crime.

If we do not fear crime, we will have improved relationships with others.

As our relationships improve, we will have achieved our vision of the society we want.

Deliberative Democracy - talking about difficult public issues

Published
by
Deborah
on September 29, 2008
in Cassandra file
. 0 Comments

Our climate is changing and so must we - all our actions matter. That is the conclusion of a small group of dedicated people who, during  three 12 hour days, worked out a process for Albertans to come together to tackle the difficult issue of global and local climate change. We all volunteered our time for this effort. If we don’t  reduce climate impacts and improve our adaptive ability, we face a very different future than we expected . If saying this means that we are modern versions of Jonah that is okay too.

The background to the story of Jonah being swallowed by a whale is that Jonah was thrown overboard while fleeing from a mission to preach doom and destruction. He did not want such a difficult, unpopular job. Once the whale barfed him up on a beach, Jonah figured he had no way out. He set out to tell millions of inhabitants of Ninevah that they would die in 40 days.

A remarkable thing happened. The Ninevahians (or whatever they were called) believed Jonah. Each of them, from the king to the commoner, repented from wickedness. So, they weren’t destroyed after all. This annoyed Jonah, for now his prediction was demonstrably wrong . He must have felt foolish; how could he prove that Divine forgiveness, and not bad prophecying, had spared Ninevah?

That is our current situation. In 1972, The Report to the Club of Rome, called Limits to Growth,  predicted doom and destruction. People heard and some repented. We bought a bit of time, and the naysayers could point out that the predictors were foolish. Business could carry on as usual. In 1987, The Brundtland Report, called Our Common Future,  predicted doom and destruction. People heard and some more repented. We bought a bit more time, and the naysayers could again point out that the predictors were foolish. Business could carry on as usual.

Now, we are in 2008, and many more people have to hear the predictions and respond by reducing their green house gas emissions, decreasing their impact on the biosphere, and helping save their cities. According to the international and local experts we consulted at this meeting in Edmonton, a lot more people have to do a lot more than saved Ninevah. Prayers alone will not do it. Like Ninevah, we need positive actions for change immediately.

Facilitators of the group processes we are planning to roll out across Alberta are committing to doing our part to get the conversations going. The University of Alberta, Athabaska University, City of Edmonton and the Deliberative Democracy Consortium funded the expenses of this weekend’s work. We hope now to find the resources, people, and action to make the province-wide community based conversations for action possible. If enough people make enough positive changes in their greenhouse gas emission footprints, and our predictions are made to look foolish becxause we bought more time, that seems better than the alternative.

 

Sidetaker.com - no wonder we lack conflict competence

Published
by
Deborah
on September 22, 2008
in Cassandra file
. 0 Comments

It’s discouraging, after devoting decades to helping people develop conflict competence, to wander into the realm of SideTaker.com, Whoiswrong.com, and other ‘blog war’ sites. These are unmediated, democratic cyberspace, where everyone is entitled to be conflict incompetent for an audience.Except, it isn’t a democracy that builds capacity, or creates social capital. These sites substitute attack opinions, sarcasm, and bullying for true democratic dialogue.

i teach the Theory and Practice of Dialogue, and Deliberative Democracy. Public forum debate is a healthy way for everyone to learn, expand their skills, create community, and change their mind if persuaded by something they hear. 

Blog warfare has ramifications for the ongoing societal conversations about the kinds of community we want to build and the value of public trust. 

1, if we are expressing a desire to revitalize a dialogue process that has become dysfunctional, then “I’m right, you’re wrong” is unlikely to do it. What in blog warfare will lift more people to a better quality of life? There wasn’t much in the websites I read that speaks word of inclusion, representation, embracing diversity, or community comprehensiveness.  We should be noticing the disconnect between the kinds of communities we find meaning in and what we create in blaming and accusations. 

2, the model of side taking debate that is being used is an impoverished example of what public onilne dialogue could be. Dialogue has a well founded theoretical basis of transformational learning, that is, we hear and learn and understand. Attacks on one side in short sarcastic witticisms isn’t enhancing anyone’s skills or lives. 

3, public dialogue introduces new information that can create better outcomes by illuminating what others are thinking. Reducing the comments to simplicity reduces our skills in complex thinking. When the topic is ‘yes’ or ‘no’ that a man is ungrateful because he does not like the taste of the toast his girlfriend made when he was ill, we miss the opportunity to inquire into whether his illness may be affecting his taste buds. That’s a simple example, but the whole point of blog warfare is simplification, in a world that needs complexity in thinking skills.

The ‘remedy’ for a jaded cynical community is to transform a jaded cynical debate process into a true dialogue of learning from each other, which can be just as much fun as calling someone names and telling them they are wrong.

Travel for dialogue while we still can

Published
by
Deborah
on July 1, 2008
in Cassandra file and Peacemaking
. 1 Comment

International jet travel is the last big ecological footprint I make. In 1999 I sold my car, and now bike, walk, bus, or car-share. I buy only what’s necessary. Nothing gets wasted; not energy, water, food, or goods and services. Having made environmental concerns the filter for all decision making for over two decades, how do I justify continuing to fly?

My passions for peacemaking and for conservation are equal values. I offset my flying carbon footprint by reducing my living carbon footprint. Making international trips feels essential to me. I go to other countries to experience cultures I would not otherwise know, to talk to people I have no other way to understand, to see for myself the peace efforts being made everywhere, to make peace one person at a time, and to learn more than the popular press has the capacity to relate .

However, I predict that air travel as we know it will end within the next decade or two. All discretionary passenger flights in conventional aircraft will be grounded. There will be limited exceptions for emergency, military, and essential personnel. That’s right - no wheels rolling down the tarmac no matter how rich you are, unless the trip has been cleared by an international air travel approval body regulating the new world order. There are three reasons for this: safety, cost of fuel, and the environmental consequences of jet exhaust in the atmosphere. 

The environmentalist in me sees the logic of this, and understands that it might come to this sooner than anyone is expecting. From an environmental perspective, air travel is too much of a carbon load to continue unchecked. However, the peacemaker in me is in despair over its inevitability. How will our cross-cultural, inter-faith and ambassadorial exchanges continue without fast ways to get to places where we most need to talk? The first reason for ending air travel was safety. Yet, the world becomes less safe if we can’t meet in person with those who are unlike ourselves. That’s what people in conflict do - talk only to people who agree. Peacemakers bridge that gap, facilitating dialogues among those who disagree. So, we must meet and talk to people of all perspectives and worldviews and opinions.

Last year I was in Yemen with two other women, traveling by ourselves just to learn, talk, dialogue, share, and experience. Dialogue with the Yemenis revealed so much in common in our shared hopes, dreams, visions for our lives and families. Now, when I read news reports from Yemen I can put a friendly face to the story. It’s the same for every country I visit.

So, my two passions are in conflict. Soon we will all have to stop our recreational and business air travel. Good, says my environmental self. That’s tragic, says my peacemaker self. I reconcile this as a mediator having to make a hard decision would. Global climate change has to be addressed now AND peace is just as pressing an issue. Mediators live easily in dichotomies, and dialectics are our normal workplaces: That is, the ability to hold two or more inconsistent ideas at the same time without our becoming uncomfortable that the conflicting ideas are in debate with each other in our minds.  

It will be more difficult to solve global environmental issues and make peace and build trust among peoples without the face-to-face exchanges, but we will have to find a way. It is not possible to chose to solve only one of these global issues.