Thursday, January 26, 2006

Competition to be Right

I read a lot of blogs and a lot of those are political. Everyone has an opinion and every is certain that the are right. One thing I haven't read in any blog, no matter what political side it's on is a willingness to actually discuss how we can come to place of agreement.

I would like to put out there: if you are writing a blog from a certain point of view, liberal or conservative, can you actually realize that not everyone is going to agree with you? Can you actually set aside the thought of the way things "ought to be" and that everyone "ought to agree with you because you are right" for just a moment and think about the larger issue. What is it we have in common? What about this issue polarizes us and how can we both--both of us with opposing viewpoints--actually get what it is we need.

I am tired of reading about how if people don't like the US they should stop complaining and move. Quite honestly, one of the beauties of the US is that we don't have to move, because we are free to speak. However our speech should not be considered the be all end all of what is and is not correct.

I wrote a bit about this earlier after reading Ken's post on the party system and the way it's been sold and how we are polarized. I'd love to create some discussion on an issue that's pertinent to the US--say the death penalty just to be different or abortion if no one goes for that--where people from different sides can say what it is that they hope for from their point of view and where they are not intent on convincing the other side that they are correct but rather at working towards a middle ground where everyone can be slightly unhappy but no one looses.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006


I realized something today. I had been putting off a task and then when I finished it, I felt very energized. I thought about how we procrastinate and how our mind tends to think of that task left undone. It's harder to meditate and concentrate on the moment becuase we know we have something that "should" be done. If we really "should" be dong it, then why don't we?

Having finally finished the task, I am amazed at how much energy I have. It's like I just drank a huge tub of cola drink! I'm not good with caffeine but that's how I felt. However this energy seemed real. It seemed positive. Think of the energy we waste worrying about the task that ought to be done or "should" be done and how much more we might have if we just went out and did the task in the first place.

Monday, January 23, 2006

Words from the Dalai Lama

A few words from the Dalai Lama from in his Words of Wisdom cards.

Peaceful living is about trusting those on whom we depend and caring for those who depend on us.

Sunday, January 22, 2006

Working together/working apart

I've gotten a little overwhelmed with the non blogging life lately and haven't had a chance to comment here much. It's likely to stay that way for a another week or so, so I apologize to anyone who comes here regularly.

I have been reading. I wanted to comment on something that Ken Granlund pointed out over at Common Sense. He's got a great blog for anyone who hasn't visited. In one of his posts he points out that the two parties in the US have gotten so polarized that they have vilified the other. From the perspective of Creating Peace, I think it's an interesting point.

Let's take the original thought forms of these parties. Republicans were about a smaller government, staying close to tried and true principles and keeping the government small so that taxes were lower. The Democrats were for the common man, reforming things so that the common man who was down on his luck didn't end up on the street or the poor farm and for creating progams that ultimately created a larger government costing more.

Think about what these two philosophies could do side by side. Working together we could have people who wanted to protect those people in the country who were down on their luck. What did they need? Okay what's a cost effective way to see to it that these things were supplied? Maybe it wasn't at the grandiose program supplied by the democratic thinker, but perhaps it was done in a way that was feasible. Really, I think both sides working together from those philosophical notions (which were the definitions of the parties as I grew up) was the best of both worlds. I'm not sure things every happened so neatly but the concept of working together was there.

Instead, as Ken points out, we have gotten to a point where each party vilifies the other, suggesting that they have nothing to offer. You need to be Democrat or Repuclican on all issues no matter what because the other side is worse. Instead of working together for the betterment of all, they are squabbling like children on a playground. What exactly does this do? There are 6,000 missing people along the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina. More are homeless. Hundreds were trapped for days in a city without water. I think we've seen what the vilification of the other can do to our country. What's it doing to our world.