Hasta La Gadget!

Credit: Bonch Gurevich

by Jacob Z. Hess, Partner, Living Room Conversations

It used to be that friends and acquaintances were mystified at my interest in liberal-conservative dialogue – “why would you spend time on THAT?!…Whatever floats your boat, I guess.”

Not anymore. America is having a rude awakening about the value of dialogue and deliberation practices these days. REALITY itself has become their best advertisement.

At the center of the harshest rhetoric (from both sides of the political spectrum) is one essential claim:  Those Other People (on the other side) are dangerous. They cannot be trusted and do not have America’s best interest at heart (and if they say they do, they’re basically lying through their teeth…).

In short, Those People are Demons Incarnate…and must be treated as such.

More than simply deceived or short-sighted or corrupt or hateful, guess what? You Are The Devil. Or a Monster (Or Both!)

However silly that may all sound, let’s be honest:  most people actually believe adherents of that Other Political Party are the Great Evil facing society.

Is that true for you? If we’re honest, most of us might admit to harboring at least some of this accusation…am I wrong?

What if, fellow citizens of America, that caricature is simply NOT empirically, verifiably, actually TRUE?

What if closer examination revealed that (eureka!) people holding disparate socio-political views are equally good-hearted and care the same about ensuring America’s well-being….but (gasp) have very different ideas about what that requires!?

Thousands of years ago, one of the world’s earliest scientists invited people to try a ground-breaking experiment: to regularly sit in silence and turn towards (rather than away from) inner contradictions in body, mind and heart…..As people tried this radical act, they were surprised to find the gnawing tension inside us change. And insight arose…with suffering almost always decreasing too.

In recent years, the dialogue and deliberation community has been pleading – in every way we know how – to invite people towards a similar radical experiment: instead of avoiding painful questions, to begin sitting with our political opposites and turning towards the contradictions between us. Listening and getting curious…maybe with some chips and salsa thrown in just for kicks.

Why? Because we know from our own experience that this gnawing tension (between us) can change. Insight can arise and suffering decrease. As Public Conversations Project puts it, Shifts Happen!

As part of this, people often come away with the ground-breaking realization that thoughtful, good-hearted people disagree on pretty much…um, everything!

The existence of God?  Check.  Creation, evolution, sexuality, gender, identity, immigration, race, guns, policing, government, religion, education and health care?  Check, check, check, check….Greatest threats to our planet?  Big time check.

Do you want to know this for yourself? If so, it’s your lucky day:  because this Radical Experiment costs no money.  And requires only one night of missing The Walking Dead.

Are you up to it?

For most Americans, the answer is pretty simple:  NO.

Last year, we decided to try a full-court press. First, we made a press release to local newspapers and radio stations offering free consultation to anyone willing to try a Living Room Conversations (with anyone they wanted, on any topic). Next, I went knocking doors inviting people in my own neighborhood to give it a try. These were people I knew well and had grown up with (people who would have to buy girl scout cookies from my children).

The result?  I was turned down right and left (and in the middle too).  You would have thought I was inviting people to try an elective colonoscopy – “no seriously…it only hurts a little.”

I was baffled. Why so much resistance?

In the aftermath, Liz Joyner, national director of the Village Square told me, “Jacob, there is something we like about the polarization; something almost reassuring about knowing that Our Side is inherently superior to Those Demons.”

No wonder people didn’t want to talk! What I thought was an invitation to a nice neighborly interaction was, in fact, messing with some serious Tribal Dynamics. And those Tribes are in no mood to fraternize right now!

Like little kids who have been convinced there really are monsters under the bed, we’ve become almost scared of getting too close to each other (or just too angry).

Stewing in those bitter juices, no wonder we’d rather opt out. Why would anyone be crazy enough to Dialogue with the Devil?

Here’s why: Because chronic resentment hurts (a lot!) It does something to the body, the heart – and our overall health. That same scientist (called the Buddha) warned thousands of years ago that anger functions like a poison in the body and mind.

If he was right, America is now suffering from a poisoning epidemic on a vast scale.

If that’s true, the antidote isn’t going to come from a grand policy fix or a million dollar research and development team.

It’s going to come from you and me…and the space between us.

Are you ready?

If that still scares you, here’s our promise: If you can rustle a little courage to make this happen, your fear of Those People will decrease – with other things emerging: affection, interest…fun?

And best of all: the Demon Story will go away…for good.
 
That doesn’t mean the disagreements go away. In fact, some of the differences on our team of long-time dialogue partners are as real and serious as ever.  The difference is that, well, now we can actually talk about them!

And we do it all the time – and have a blast doing it! (Did I mention that we always come away with new insights on seemingly irresolvable problems too?)

Let’s do this, America! Believe it or not, there’s something WAY better than the creepy comfort of knowing the Other People in America are out to Destroy Us All.

It’s called Seeing Each Other. For Real. Outside of the Stories.

And outside those Demon Stories, guess what? Those People are pretty darn likeable.

It’s cheesy, but I’m going to say it anyway:  Let’s Make America See-Each-Other Again!

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

For some, the debate over whether there is life after death is still a question waiting to be resolved. But for actress Reese Witherspoon, heaven is more than an idea.

The 40-year-old actress opened up about her spiritual beliefs during a scene on comedian Chelsea Handler’s new Netflix show “Chelsea”, revealing a strong faith in the afterlife.

During the conversation, Handler asked Witherspoon what she thinks happens after people die.

“I think we go to heaven,” Witherspoon, who was reportedly raised Episcopalian, responded.  “I think you get an angel and the wings and the thing and the halo, the whole deal.”

The surety of Witherspoon’s faith prompted show host Chelsea Handler, who has identified as Jewish in the past but remains skeptical about religion, to share a story about her own encounters with the supernatural. The comedian spoke about how a psychic managed to channel the spirit of her late mother ― an event that almost convinced her to have faith in a higher power. 

But Witherspoon suggested she’s had experiences that have proven to her that death isn’t the end.

“This is just me, I really believe it,” Witherspoon said. “I’ve had car accidents, I’ve given birth to babies, I swear my grandparents are in the room. I’ve seen my grandfather in a theater in New York when I was on the stage. I know it.”

Listen to a clip above and tune in to “Chelsea” on Netflix for the entire conversation. 

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Starbucks has recalled 2.8 million of its stainless steel straws after reports of children cutting their mouths while drinking.

Read more…

Here’s the problem with political correctness: If we tell people that it’s not OK for them to share certain thoughts and feelings, what happens to those thoughts and feelings? They don’t just go away. They don’t disappear simply because social norms make it verboten to give voice to them.

Those thoughts and feelings are stifled and suppressed, but not forgotten. They go underground — and when they go underground, they fester. They intensify. They grow — magnified by the frustration of not being allowed to express them. People may bite their tongues and refrain from saying negative things, but those thoughts and feelings are still very much alive — and they are toxic.

People don’t change their opinions just because those opinions are deemed unacceptable to share publicly. They hold onto them, keeping their opinions to themselves, until someone gives them permission to go public — which is exactly what Donald Trump has done.

Last year when he announced he was running for president, and commented about “Mexico sending us their drugs and rapists,” Trump gave others permission to cast off the muzzle of political correctness as well. For the first time in many years, people felt they could speak their minds.

Finally, after three decades of stifling political correctness norms, millions of Americans have found their voices, and it’s not a pretty sound. The fair-haired boy — the hero of disgruntled, resentful, angry, disappointed, fearful Americans — has made it OK for people to talk about what’s really on their minds. Because that’s what HE does — with no filter between his brain and his mouth, Trump is a walking, talking, stream of consciousness, a verbal lava flow of white-hot emotions, perceptions, and conspiracy theories. That’s one of the things his fans admire — he doesn’t self-censor. He isn’t strategic in crafting his message. He just says whatever comes into his head in the moment — letting the chips fall where they may. Millions of people want to do that same thing — speak their minds without fear of being shushed and shamed for being “politically incorrect.”

(Photo: Randall Hill, Reuters)

A few days ago, former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich wrote: “Trump … supporters seem to have come out of nowhere, expressing in large numbers ideas far more extreme than anything that has risen to such popularity in recent memory. In South Carolina, a CBS News exit poll found that 75 percent of Republican voters supported banning Muslims from the United States. APPP poll found that a third of Trump voters support banning gays and lesbians from the country. Twenty percent said Lincoln shouldn’t have freed the slaves.”

Experts and pundits are surprised by these findings — but they shouldn’t be. These sentiments have been there all along — for decades. Folks simply weren’t allowed to express them. These beliefs and feelings were masked by a thin veneer of social acceptability.

Political correctness clamps a lid on our freedom to express our authentic thoughts and feelings to one another. Political correctness puts a damper on meaningful discussion of important issues, especially those related to race, ethnicity, race, culture, gender, religion, sexuality and other sensitive topics. Political correctness throws a wet blanket on any progress we might have made if we had felt free to share our feelings, our fears, our resentments, our hopes, our anxieties, our prejudices, our values and beliefs — to have an open discussion about what we really think and feel.

The proponents of political correctness are well-intentioned, to be sure. Their goal was to cultivate a cultural climate of mutual respect, tact, tolerance, and sensitivity to the feelings of others. The problem is, censuring people’s words does nothing to change their hearts and minds. I would argue that it probably does just the opposite.

Here’s the bottom line: How are we ever going to have authentic, meaningful conversations about sensitive issues of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, cultural difference and values if we can’t talk about what’s really on our minds? How can we build bridges of understanding if we can’t speak openly?

Former NAACP chairman Julian Bond once said: “You hate to think you have to censor your language to meet other people’s lack of understanding. … As a nation the U.S. has a ‘hair-trigger sensibility’ on race that can be tripped by both real and false grievances.”

Are we really so fragile, so sensitive, that we can’t bear to hear someone else speak their truth, even if that truth is painful to hear? Do we need to be protected from each others’ perceptions, fears, anger and resentment? Are our “feelings” so delicate that we can’t bear to listen to the pain, confusion, and frustration that other carry in their hearts?

In my consulting work over the years, I’ve noticed that when people in an organization can tell the truth about what’s really going on — about the important issues affecting them — the healthier that organization is. The same holds true for families — the more family members can tell each other the truth about their feelings and thoughts — the healthier that family is.

“You’re only as sick as your secrets,” psychologists tell us. Secrets eat away at our insides. Secrets are not conducive to healthy relationships — in business, in families, or in societies and countries. When we have to keep our true feelings secret, we are sickened by the suppression. We swallow the poison of our resentments, while hoping those we resent will die.

We will never rid our country of prejudice, racism, sexism, bigotry, and xenophobia by prohibiting uncomfortable, painful conversations.

Trump may have actually given us a gift by rejecting conventional norms of political correctness, and by removing the lid from the boiling cauldron of negative feelings shared by millions of our fellow citizens. Isn’t it better to KNOW how people really feel? Isn’t it healthier to air our feelings — especially negative feelings — so we can help one another face our fears, process our resentments, and work through our anger?

We humans crave order and security — we long to feel some sense of control in our lives. But the world is chaotic, unpredictable, fast-paced, and changing — rife with risks and dangers, both real and imagined. “Challenges to the existing order — diversity, influx of outsiders, breakdown of the old order — are experienced as personally threatening because they risk upending the status quo order [people] equate with basic security.” (Robert Reich)

That’s Trump’s appeal — he promises to take charge and make everything all right again. He names the monsters and bogeymen hiding under our beds and reassures us he will dispatch them once he’s in the White House. His promise to “Make America Great Again” offers his followers the hope of safety, security, law and order.

For decades, political correctness proponents have said, “Don’t share your true feelings and thoughts, especially if they’re negative. It’s not OK to say those things.” Donald Trump says, “I feel your pain. Tell me your troubles. Tell me where it hurts — and I will kiss your boo-boos and make them all better.”

By not allowing people to speak of their fear of “others,” their financial and social anxiety, their despair about the future, we have failed to deal with the chronic, soul-crushing pain that millions of Americans have been feeling for a long time.

The fact that the pundits and pols are surprised at the anger, fear, resentments, and faulty information our fellow citizens have been brooding over tells us that they are out of touch. And political correctness is one of the reasons they’re out of touch. Political correctness is one of the reasons we’re all out of touch — and surprised by Trump’s widespread popularity.

By not being willing to have uncomfortable and awkward conversations with one another — by not dealing with our negative perceptions and feelings, we have created the perfect conditions for someone like Trump to ascend to the role of hero of the disenfranchised and distressed. Political correctness has a down side, and we’re all seeing it … “big league.”

BJ Gallagher is a Los Angeles diversity consultant and author of over 30 books, including an international best-seller, A Peacock in the Land of Penguins: A Fable About Creativity and Courage (Berrett-Koehler; 2015) now published in 23 languages.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

WASHINGTON ― The Supreme Court on Wednesday put on hold a judge’s order that would have allowed a transgender student to use the boys’ restroom at his local high school in Virginia.

Gavin Grimm, the 17-year-old at the center of the case, won a significant appeals ruling in April that deferred to the federal government’s interpretation of Title IX, a federal law that bars school districts from discriminating on the basis of sex but doesn’t explicitly provide gender identity protections.

As a result of that decision, a federal judge in June ordered the Gloucester County School board to allow Grimm, who is now a senior in high school, to use the boys’ bathroom in the coming school year.

But after an unsuccessful bid to block the order, the school district asked the Supreme Court to intervene in an emergency fashion while it sought a more formal appeal ― a process that could take months.

Even though the court is currently on recess for the summer, five justices agreed to the request — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer ― but didn’t provide a reasoning for their move.

Of these, Breyer’s vote may come as a surprise to advocates, as the justice often sides with the court’s liberal wing. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan would’ve left the order in favor of Grimm in place.

As if to explain his vote, Breyer wrote a brief concurrence to explain that he joined his more conservative colleagues “to preserve the status quo” and because the court is currently not in session.

“I vote to grant the application as a courtesy,” Breyer wrote.

Even though the court hasn’t formally added this case to its docket, this is the first time the Supreme Court enters the controversy of bathroom access in public spaces for transgender people.

Grimm’s case could be a linchpin on this front, even as other states and localities face off with the federal government over whether existing federal civil rights statutes shield trans individuals from discrimination in education and employment settings.

Among the issues that are central to the Grimm case and similar disputes in North Carolina and elsewhere is whether the Obama administration acted lawfully in its interpretation of Title IX, which conditions federal funding for schools on states and localities committing the law’s anti-discrimination provisions.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.