Building Confidence as a Mediator

One of the things I have noticed as I have become more comfortable mediating is when and how comfortable I am in pushing the parties and not giving up to soon. When I first started mediating I was a little bit apprehensive to push or ask certain questions when the parties were convinced that this was not going to work and they were not going to come to a settlement. As I have become more comfortable as a mediator, I have also become more comfortable in pushing the parties a little bit more and asking questions I would not have asked when I first began as a mediator. What I am finding is these questions are what will move people to settle. They push the parties to think of different ideas.



I remember a mediation I conducted that has been in civil litigation for over 4 years. The parties had made offers back and forth and back and forth. In the mediation session I encouraged them to think outside the box. I encouraged them to think of a settlement possibility that they could not get in the court that would be useful for them. In the end a settlement was reached and the parties agreed that one party would a give credit of services and product that his company made to the other party in lieu of a cash settlement. The other party had two years to use this credit. Both of the parties jumped right on the idea, it was a perfect settlement and something they could of never come to in a court hearing. The court could only look at cash damages. It was one of those win/win situations.



As you grow as a mediator you have to be a little bit assertive and be willing to ask the questions that may seem like you are keeping things going to long. There is the balance of course, that you cannot keep parties hostage until they settle and you have to know the difference. But quitting too soon is something that new mediators really need to pay attention to and make sure you work just a little bit to move the parties to settlement.

Control

Control of the Process
In basic mediation training we are all taught that we are in “control” of the process of the mediation… not the outcome. So, what does being in control of the process mean? Does it mean that you exert yourself at all costs? Do you set ground rules? Do you ever give over the “control” to maintain control?

I remember a case I mediated in which I had a very energetic party. It was a young Guardian ad Litem (GAL) in the case and he was fairly new in this role. The case was complex and the level of conflict was high so this GAL has a lot of energy wrapped up in the case.
The case involved a young child who had been abused physically and the parties were trying to determine the custody and visitation arrangements between the mother and the father. The abuse had been perpetrated by mother’s ex-boyfriend who was now being charged with criminal child abuse. So, neither of the parents directly caused the abuse, but the state child protection workers wanted both of the parents to take some responsibility in the form of failure to care charges.

The GAL was very animated and involved in the discussions regarding the care of the child. In order for me to suppress his energy and involvement in the mediation would have taken a lot of interventions and in doing so, I would have had to shut down many things that were happening in the mediation. It also happens that when he came into the room, I asked him to sit at the end of the table; instead, he pulled in right in-between the parents and their attorneys. This put him in direct line with those having the conversations.

So, he was put in the middle due to the seating arrangement as well as in regard to his role as the GAL. So, what did I do? I went with the flow. The GAL had lots of energy around the issue, he was working and engaging appropriately with both parents, so, for a portion of the mediation I basically stayed out of his way and he worked out the issues of custody and visitation.

He worked it out between the parents like a mediator would. The GAL was doing a fine job of negotiating custody and visitation, moving back and forth between the parents. The mother and her attorney were in the mediation room and the father and his attorney were in a caucus room. The GAL was the one moving back and forth negotiating the plans, instead of the mediator. I would not always do this, in fact, I would rarely do it. The reason I allowed it in this case is that I believe that we as mediators need to be aware of what is working and not working in the room. And in this case, it was working.

As mediators, we have to be flexible, we have to work with what is going on in the room and not force people into the format or the structure that we believe is best for them. Instead, we need to work with them and help them to find the format/structure that will work best for them in addressing the issues they have come to work on in mediation.

The other issue in this case was that of seating arrangements. When ever you have someone in- between the parties in conflict, they are going to end up being very involved in that conversation. My preference would have been for the GAL to be opposite me at the other end of the table and the parents to be side by side with their attorneys and the State Child Protection workers and their attorney across the table. Then, I, as the mediator, am in the middle of the conversations and in this case the parents could have had conversations without someone in the middle. Seating is very important and you have to think about it. In this case I could have been more assertive when the GAL first sat down and asked him to move, but I did not. Once I made that decision I had to work with it and not disrupt the flow of what was happening in the process.

So, as with all other things in mediation…. Control is a relative and flexible concept. I guess that is why we all love the work so much.

The Balancing Act of Time

Time .....
How much Time is really needed for a productive mediation session?

In today's world, time is in such short supply for all of us. When I present to groups or individuals and talk about mediation, one of the most common questions asked is "how much time will it take?" When I tell them it could take hours, they cringe at the thought.

I recently had a meeting with some school officials talking about truancy mediation. What we ask of the school officials is to block two hours out of their very busy day to engage in the mediation process. There is some resistance to the time and most want to know what we can do to make the process faster.

I explained to the school officicals that truancy mediation is about building relationships and building relationships takes time. Often when the student and parents come into truancy mediation they are feeling one down, they are in a powerless position. In order for them to become comfortable and to speak their truth, the first goal is to get them to feel comfortable. That takes time, time and consistency and you cannot do this in 5 minutes. You have to do this over a period of time and everyone is different, so there is no standard time.

There is also a balance to this..... in that you cannot take forever to complete a mediation. If things are not moving along, the mediator cannot continue to try everything possible hoping that parties will move in a direction that seems meaningful. Sometimes you have to be willing to let it go, end the session. In the truancy mediation program we train mediators to be aware and if the mediation is taking over two hours they should have a really good reason why it went that long. The mediator should be able to explain why the process is taking so long.

If you medaition sessions are lasting an extremly long time be willing to examine the reason your mediation sessions are taking so long....... if there is an understandable reason, OK. If you cannot identify the reason the mediation took so long, then you have some searching to do.... What is going on?

I believe that Time cannot be pushed, you cannot force through a mediation any quicker than the slowest party is grasping and moving along in the process. In addition to the parties understanding you must also take into consdieration the time that is needed to create positive relationships.

On the other side... are you losing parties by allowing the mediation session to go on for too long?
That ever present balance of TIME..........

Watch the latest videos on YouTube.com

Emotional Intelligence & Social Intelligence

Emotional Intelligence is the ability to bring intelligence to emotion. To view the human experience without bringing in emotion is short-sighted... Emotions are part of the human experience as much as thought. In his book Emotional Intelligence Daniel Goleman outlines Emotional Intelligence as:

• Knowing Ones Emotions;
• Managing Ones Emotions Appropriately;
• Motivating Ones Self;
• Recognizing and Understanding Other Peoples Emotions;
• Managing Relationships -- Managing the Emotions of Others.

Mediators who work with high conflict parties need to examine their own level of Emotional Intelligence. To appropriately intervene with parties in high emotion, I believe we must first be able to accept our own emotions and manage them, not deny or suppress them. The role of a mediator is to hold the space for parties so they can work on and address difficult issues. If the mediator is unable to accept and manage their own emotions...how can they create a space for others to accept and manage strong emotions?

I encourage all mediators to take an emotional intelligence test available on-line. There are many out there if you google for them.... One quick and easy test can be found at

http://psychologytoday.psychtests.com/cgi-bin/tests/transfer.cgi?partner=pt&part=1&teaser=0&ref=free&ad=0&test=eiq_abridged&AMT=0.00&item=Emotional%20IQ%20Test%20-%20Abridged

The next frontier appears to be Social Intelligence.... Here is an article about Daniel Goleman's latest book.....

Daniel Goleman, the author of the best-selling book "Emotional Intelligence," is back with a new book on social intelligence -- the ability to read other people's cues and then act on them.
In "Social Intelligence: The New Science of Human Relationships," Goleman says that our brain is designed to make connections with other humans, and that our relationships have a real biological impact -- whether it's flirting with the opposite sex or succeeding at work.
Social intelligence means being smart in relationships by being empathetic, or being able to sense what others are feeling and their intentions.
Secondly, it means having the social skills to act on that information.
The people with the most social intelligence are those who are good listeners, Goleman says.
You can become a better listener by being motivated and mindful in social situations.
Instead of just saying what you think, stop and listen to the other person, and fine-tune your response to them.
Once you make the effort, and practice the skill, it comes naturally.
For full article see this link
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Books/story?id=2496899&page=1

Check out Daniel Goleman's books:
http://astore.amazon.com/rcblog-20

Now is the time

So, I have been thinking about starting up my blog again and this seemed to be the article that I will start with..... I am not sure what to think about this???? Should we think this is good??? Should we feel sorry for these people who cannot live their life as they are??? It seems to me that they are giving up soooooo much and for what? It seems like a soul killer to me... and their kids???? what do they learn??? Here is the link..... http://www.sltrib.com/faith/ci_4138478

Sir Elton John

So, England gives me hopes and makes me wish I lived anywhere but Utah in the USA.... This week Sir Elton John and his partner tied the knot....check out the great headlines. You would think that Tony Blair could have a chat about this topic with George.....?


Sound of shifting ground
Cultural shifts can be hard to document. But sometimes they crystallize around an event. That seemed to be the case Wednesday as flamboyant rock star Elton John, 58, became one of the first people to take advantage of a new British law allowing same-sex couples to enter into civil unions.
John and longtime partner David Furnish, a 43-year-old Canadian, had their union made official at Windsor's Guildhall — where Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles married in April. Any doubt about broad British acceptance of civil unions, which give the same legal rights as marriage does, was dispelled by London's tabloid press, which prides itself on having a finger on the nation's pulse.
With the headline "Elton's 'wedding' sealed with a kiss," the Daily Mail typified the warm coverage. Twenty years ago, such a celebration would have been unthinkable. Britain joins more than a dozen countries recognizing some form of civil union. Five, including Canada, have legalized gay marriage.
In the USA, the political debate over gay marriage — in which religious conservatives have pushed for a constitutional ban — has obscured a similar broad cultural shift.
A new Hollywood movie about two gay cowboys —Brokeback Mountain - might become a marker of that shift, if not as starkly as Sir Elton's civil union. Brokeback Mountain, based on an Annie Proulx novella, has already garnered high praise from critics and seven Golden Globe nominations. In its limited release so far, it has been a box office hit. Its breakthrough appeal is that it is a poignant love story, one in which the characters happen to be gay. A similar trend has been seen on TV for the past few years.
In polls, most Americans oppose gay marriage but are far more accepting of civil unions, sometimes with a slim majority. State laws are all over the map. Massachusetts allows gay marriage. A handful of states accept or are considering allowing civil partnerships; others have moved in the opposite direction.
Last year, running for re-election, and with a keen awareness of the broader public mood, President Bush parted ways with the Republican platform: "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union," he said. Sir Elton would no doubt agree that such rights are part of what Philadelphia freedom is all about.
Tony Blair: Why we should all share in these celebrations
Much of the opposition to equal rights for gays was downright spiteful
Published: 21 December 2005
Across the country this week, hundreds of couples will be celebrating a major milestone in their lives. They will be followed by thousands more in the coming months as same sex couples take the opportunity to gain legal recognition and protection for their relationship.
The Civil Partnership Act may not be the biggest change that this Government has brought in. But, by correcting an obvious injustice, removing fear and providing security, it will change the lives of tens of thousands of people for the better. It is also, importantly, another step towards the fairer, more tolerant country which this Labour Government pledged to build.
This landmark measure ends the situation where same-sex relationships were invisible in the eyes of the law, denied any recognition of their commitment. It gives gay and lesbian couples who register their relationship the same safeguards over inheritance, insurance and employment and pension benefits as married couples. No longer will same sex couples who have decided to share their lives fear they will be denied a say over the partner's medical treatment or find themselves denied a home if their partner dies.
As you would expect from this New Labour Government, new rights and privileges are also matched by new responsibilities. Financial support will be expected to be provided for the couple's children, for example, in the event of a breakdown in the relationship.
Such a wide-ranging reform was long overdue. By 1997, society's attitudes to lesbian, gay and bisexual people had changed dramatically. There is, as we have seen already this week, still some opposition to these measures. But I don't believe these views reflect the opinions of the overwhelming majority of people in our country.
Past hostility and suspicions have been replaced with tolerance and understanding. Our laws and political culture, however, had simply not kept pace with these changes. So when we came to power, Britain still had an unequal age of consent and it was lawful to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation, religion and age.
It was something I was determined to help tackle. I was struck when I listened in the Commons to debates on the age of consent and other issues like this just how much of the opposition was based on prejudice which was very old-fashioned and, at times, downright spiteful. It seemed to me that a Labour Government committed to equality must take action.
In the last eight years, we have seen steady and, at times, remarkable progress. The age of consent for gay men has been equalised. Section 28, a law of which a great many Tory MPs were rightly ashamed but which they still put in place, has been repealed. Anti-gay discrimination in the workplace has been outlawed as it will soon be, we intend, in the provision of goods and services. From 1 January, gay and lesbian couples will be able to adopt children jointly for the first time.
I am proud it was this Labour Government that has brought in these modernising and fair measures - and I can't imagine that any government will reverse them. I wouldn't pretend for a moment that MPs from other parties did not campaign for these changes. But I am convinced that we would not have come so far or so fast without the election of a Labour government determined to turn its words on an equal, opportunity society into action.
For the Civil Partnership Act helps highlight again this Government's determination to create a more modern, open, fairer and democratic country. It's a commitment which can be seen in a wide array of measures, not all of which Independent readers may welcome as much as this Act. So along with the Freedom of Information Act, improved rights for parents at work, devolution for Scotland and Wales, better public services, and the creation of the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights, we have also seen new powers - with more to come - to tackle the antisocial behaviour that still blights too many communities. All are part of our central mission to provide security and opportunity for all.
They are having an impact. Britain is, in many different ways, a more modern, fairer and better place to live than it was. One of the greatest delights about London's winning bid for the 2012 Olympics was that the decision by the IOC was based, in no small part, on their recognition of the dynamism, strength, tolerance and diversity of our society.
There is, of course, no room for complacency. There is still too much injustice, discrimination and unfairness. But in ceremonies up and down the country this week, we can also see that, as a society and country, we continue to move in the right direction. That's a good enough reason for us all to celebrate.
Across the country this week, hundreds of couples will be celebrating a major milestone in their lives. They will be followed by thousands more in the coming months as same sex couples take the opportunity to gain legal recognition and protection for their relationship.
The Civil Partnership Act may not be the biggest change that this Government has brought in. But, by correcting an obvious injustice, removing fear and providing security, it will change the lives of tens of thousands of people for the better. It is also, importantly, another step towards the fairer, more tolerant country which this Labour Government pledged to build.
This landmark measure ends the situation where same-sex relationships were invisible in the eyes of the law, denied any recognition of their commitment. It gives gay and lesbian couples who register their relationship the same safeguards over inheritance, insurance and employment and pension benefits as married couples. No longer will same sex couples who have decided to share their lives fear they will be denied a say over the partner's medical treatment or find themselves denied a home if their partner dies.
As you would expect from this New Labour Government, new rights and privileges are also matched by new responsibilities. Financial support will be expected to be provided for the couple's children, for example, in the event of a breakdown in the relationship.
Such a wide-ranging reform was long overdue. By 1997, society's attitudes to lesbian, gay and bisexual people had changed dramatically. There is, as we have seen already this week, still some opposition to these measures. But I don't believe these views reflect the opinions of the overwhelming majority of people in our country.
Past hostility and suspicions have been replaced with tolerance and understanding. Our laws and political culture, however, had simply not kept pace with these changes. So when we came to power, Britain still had an unequal age of consent and it was lawful to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation, religion and age.
It was something I was determined to help tackle. I was struck when I listened in the Commons to debates on the age of consent and other issues like this just how much of the opposition was based on prejudice which was very old-fashioned and, at times, downright spiteful. It seemed to me that a Labour Government committed to equality must take action.
In the last eight years, we have seen steady and, at times, remarkable progress. The age of consent for gay men has been equalised. Section 28, a law of which a great many Tory MPs were rightly ashamed but which they still put in place, has been repealed. Anti-gay discrimination in the workplace has been outlawed as it will soon be, we intend, in the provision of goods and services. From 1 January, gay and lesbian couples will be able to adopt children jointly for the first time.
I am proud it was this Labour Government that has brought in these modernising and fair measures - and I can't imagine that any government will reverse them. I wouldn't pretend for a moment that MPs from other parties did not campaign for these changes. But I am convinced that we would not have come so far or so fast without the election of a Labour government determined to turn its words on an equal, opportunity society into action.
For the Civil Partnership Act helps highlight again this Government's determination to create a more modern, open, fairer and democratic country. It's a commitment which can be seen in a wide array of measures, not all of which Independent readers may welcome as much as this Act. So along with the Freedom of Information Act, improved rights for parents at work, devolution for Scotland and Wales, better public services, and the creation of the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights, we have also seen new powers - with more to come - to tackle the antisocial behaviour that still blights too many communities. All are part of our central mission to provide security and opportunity for all.
They are having an impact. Britain is, in many different ways, a more modern, fairer and better place to live than it was. One of the greatest delights about London's winning bid for the 2012 Olympics was that the decision by the IOC was based, in no small part, on their recognition of the dynamism, strength, tolerance and diversity of our society.
There is, of course, no room for complacency. There is still too much injustice, discrimination and unfairness. But in ceremonies up and down the country this week, we can also see that, as a society and country, we continue to move in the right direction. That's a good enough reason for us all to celebrate.

Inspiration

I don't have anything meaningful on my mind lately.... But I have been reading the blog that gave me the inspiration to start this one and I decided I should share it with you... So check it out and get a good laugh. The blogger is a 20something American who has been living in Shangi and is on her way out.... In about 5 days...
Check it out and Enjoy.
http://nicoleandmsg.blogspot.com/

Maybe Arnold's Not SO BAD?

So, Arnold is in political trouble...So he has appointed a new Chief of Staff....A Democratic Lesbian named Kennedy (no she is not related to "the Kennedy" family). Of course, the conservatives are having a fit...See the website at the bottom of this post...But it seems that Arnold made Maria happy!
All I can say is...Don't sell out Susan! Be true to your beliefs and values and do not let Arnold co-opt you...We will see???

By Adam Tanner Wed Nov 30, 7:24 PM ET
SACRAMENTO, California (Reuters) - California's Republican Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger' named a Democrat in a same-sex marriage as his chief of staff on Wednesday in an apparent political shift on the heels of a major electoral defeat.
Susan Kennedy, 45, was the confidant and number two to ousted Democratic Gov.
Gray Davis' whom Schwarzenegger beat in a bitter recall election in 2003. She married her lesbian partner in 1999.
"I love Susan, I think the world of her," Schwarzenegger told a news conference at the state capitol. "She is willing to take her Democratic philosophy aside and implement my vision."
Despite his celebrity as a former Hollywood star and champion bodybuilder, Schwarzenegger faces a challenge in convincing a state in which Democrats are the largest party to re-elect him in 2006.
Voters rejected him across the board when he sought support for ballot initiative measures opposed by Democrats earlier this month.
The appointment of a woman who once served as the California Democratic Party executive director and has led campaigns for abortion rights angered some Republicans.
"The appointment of Susan Kennedy as chief of staff to the governor is a betrayal of the hard-working activists that supported the governor during the recent special election," said Mike Spence, president of the California Republican Assembly.
Another opponent immediately set up a Web site www.stopsusankennedy.com where visitors were urged to sign a petition seeking to rescind the appointment.
"BRILLIANT CHOICE"
Although reaching to the opposing political party for senior staff appointments is relatively rare in American politics, Schwarzenegger's top advisor is his wife, prominent Democrat Maria Shriver.
He also says his mother-in-law, Eunice Kennedy Shriver -- sister of the late U.S. President John F. Kennedy -- frequently offers him political suggestions. Susan Kennedy is not related to the family.
Former Gov. Davis, under whom Kennedy served as cabinet secretary and deputy chief of staff, called Schwarzenegger's choice brilliant.
"Susan is a remarkable public servant -- she believes in governing from the center," Davis told Reuters. "She processes information more quickly than anyone that I have ever known."
Kennedy, who served most recently on the California Public Utilities Commission, described herself as a moderate Democrat willing to put aside party differences.
"I'm tired of the partisanship," she said. "I felt it was time for me as a Democrat to put up or shut up."
Schwarzenegger said that he had heard protests from about five percent of those he told the news, but said he would not change his political program.
"This is not about drifting anywhere," Schwarzenegger said. "It doesn't change my direction at all."

The stupid website set up to STOP her appointment
http://www.stopsusankennedy.com/

Life or Death

Life or Death for Tookie Williams? What do you think? For those of you who are not up on this story, he is one of the men who started the "crips" gang in LA. He has been convicted of killing four people, but there were no eye witnesses to any of his crimes, only the testimony of other gang members who were also at the scene. Since being in prison, Tookie says he has changed...He has learned empathy and has remorse for his behavior. He has written books targeted to keep kids from joining gangs and has spoken, via phone, to many groups about gangs. SO, should he be put to death on 12/13/05?

I have worked with a group of about 12 men in a central Utah prison for the past 4-5 years. All of these men are incarcerated for murder, and many of them are in on a life sentence. I think the one thing I have learned from them is the idea of judging someone for one moment in time in their life. I don't know a lot about Tookie, he obviously had years of crime behind him prior to his incarceration....But for many of the men I work with, their crime was one of passion...An out of control moment they will pay for with the rest of their lives. This idea of punishing someone for one moment in time in their life makes me think.... Are their times in my life when I have acted or done things I am ashamed of??? Yes..... Would I want the label of that time and those actions to define me for the rest of my life? NO.... So, do we as a society allow people to change? To grow? If not, what is the point????
If you want to get involved in this issue more check out www.savetookie.org
For more information an article from the SL Tribune
http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_3277156

Red v. Blue

This has been around awhile, but it was recently sent to me and I like it...

Dear Red States,
We're ticked off at the way you've treated California and we've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with us.
In case you aren't aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation and especially to the people of the new country of New California
To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states.
We get stem cell research and the best beaches.
We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay.
We get the Statue of Liberty. You get Opry Land.
We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.
We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss
We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama.
We get two-thirds of the tax revenue, you get to make the red states pay their fair share.
Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.
Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids that are apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don't care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home. We do wish you success in Iraq, and hope that WMDs turn up, but we're not willing to spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire.
With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the US low sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Harvard, Yale Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.
With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans and their projected health care costs, 92 percent of all US mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, vitrully 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, and Clemson and the University of Georgia.
We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.
Additionally 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61 percent of you @#$%^ &*&@#)( believe you are people with higher morals than we lefties.
By the way, we're taking the good pot, too
You can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico.
Sincerely,
Author Unknown in New California.

No More Republican "Lite"

A cheese-head for President? Russ Feingold is looking good to me. He is a Senator from Wisconsin. He voted "no" on the Iraq War, "no" on the Patriot Act and is holding true to his beliefs. I really liked his approach and his philosophy as he was interviewed on ABC Sunday Morning.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1349549

He talked about the Democratic Party taking a stand and said democrats can no longer be "Republican Lite". They have to stand for something and be proud of it.

For more information on his views and his timetable proposal to pull out of Iraq visit his website: http://www.russfeingold.org/

This guy gives me HOPE!

Words of Wisdom

No, not the word of wisdom...but something better. Words from a grandmother on a fixed income who is struggling with the whole meaning of Christmas. Don't get me wrong, I am not against giving a gift to show how much you love and appreciate a loved one or a friend..but I do agree that there has to be a limit....any maybe we should all consider having a limit and sending some of the money we would usually spend going over the limit to someone in need....or better yet, just spend some quality time with our families instead of running around shopping looking for the perfect gift...Often, our attention and love is the perfect gift!

Christmas has been stolen from us
Utah Voices
Janice Cameron

Usually the Christmas season starts the day after Thanksgiving with huge come-ons in the stores. Last year, I even went with my family to Best Buy and stood in line to buy a DVD for just over $30. My grandsons camped out all night in the line to purchase all the things the family wanted. But this year, I decided Christmas has just gone too far. When the X-Box craze appeared at the first of the week, and people were camping out, I finally decided we U.S. citizens have gone crazy!
You see, I live in a retirement center on a fixed income. This is the first year I have had to face the fact that I can't go out and charge up the world with my cards. And I have always enjoyed giving gifts and doing things for others at Christmas. So when I looked at the Target advertisement a few weeks ago and noted the prices of the suggested gifts (ranging from $40 for video games to I-Pods that were far more than what I could pay for), I determined that I could not give at Christmas anymore. Sen. Orrin Hatch said recently that the elderly have more money to spend than ever before. I don't know where he gets that idea because he sure doesn't live like I do. And I live in a nice retirement home (not a nursing home), I have a nice dining room and drivers to take me to my doctor appointments and shopping.
There is nothing more in this world I want to do than buy some great gifts for my grandchildren. But I can no longer compete with the prices of items for those children today and, darn it, I love them just as much as the next grandma. What happened to kids lying out in the snow and moving their arms up and down to make snow angels? What happened to the families who chopped down their own Christmas tree and decorated it with whatever they had, including stringing popcorn. What happened to the sleds, skates, hot chocolate and people singing Christmas carols and baking cookies?
And I wonder what the low-income parents do to try and be Santa Claus to a generation of kids who always have something stuck in their ear while you are trying to have a meaningful conversation.
The true fact of Christmas this year is that there are a lot of lonely elderly people out there whose families have become so busy that they don't have time for us. They have season tickets to the local football teams; they fly to Hawaii (or some exotic place) for Christmas; they watch their children play in tournaments and run marathons, and are so busy that they miss an awful lot of life.
The fact is that there are many children who have no way of getting those expensive items. The fact is there are soldiers who put their life on the line for us every day to give us the freedom we experience. The fact is that 70,000 people were killed in Pakistan recently and winter is coming on for them, and they have no food. People in Africa are struggling with AIDS. And Honduras, Mexico and Guatemala just were decimated by storms.
There are the people without homes in the New Orleans area, and just last week the electricity was finally on in the Fort Lauderdale area. The Navajo people need stoves to keep them warm (they are one of the few Indians who do not have gambling casinos); Delta Air Lines is in bankruptcy; General Motors is laying off thousands of workers. The food banks are asking for help. The Humane Society needs food and warm bedding, and frankly, there are just a thousand ways everyone in this United States could spend their money this season. But instead, this nation chooses to stand in line to be the first to have the latest technology of today instead of what is really needed.
Even though it is depressing right now to face the Christmas season, all the needy and elderly may get through it. But how many could you have helped instead of buying that digital camera? --- Janice Cameron is a retired mother of two and grandmother of five. She lives in South Jordan.

Happy Turkey Day

I know it is late for this post...but I cannot help myself. I thought about this all day on Thanksgiving.

You Go!

Check out these articles about the conservative right trying to take over Utah....like they don't run all of our lives already????
My dad spoke out against this and I am a PROUD daughter!
You Go DAD!

Institute urges cities to map out family roles
http://sltrib.com/ci_3244212

and

North Salt Lake shrugs at family resolution
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635163445,00.html

Judgment

I was having a conversation with another mediator today about the whole debate over transformative mediation. What I came to was that those who are "great" mediators naturally create a space in which parties can transform. They do this by just being themselves and staying away from judgment. In the ACResolution Magazine, Fall 2005, Sharon Pickett from Bethesda, Maryland wrote "I remember that I do not know the people sitting with me or understand the life experiences that have shaped who they are. We are all flawed human beings doing our best in an imperfect world -- and that includes me." What a great way to view the world and those who we come into contact with. It must take a lot of energy to always feel like you are better than others, figuring out what is wrong about them and right about you. Sounds like too much work to me....I like being in charge of only myself..and sometimes my dog, never my cat, and I don't even consider my Wife.

News of the Day--My judgment of the day

I cannot believe that our Vice President is hosting a fundraiser to help pay for Tom DeLay's court case...What is the world coming to? Is there not enough to do as the Vice President of the US....this guy has time to promote this kind of behavior????

HOUSTON Nov 22, 2005 — A campaign fundraiser for embattled Rep. Tom DeLay postponed by Hurricane Rita in September is being rescheduled for Dec. 5 with Vice President Dick Cheney as the headliner.
"It points out that the party is behind (DeLay) and the (Bush) administration is supportive and wants to keep Congressman DeLay in office," Eric Thode, Republican chairman in DeLay's home county of Fort Bend, told the Houston Chronicle in a story published Tuesday.
The most expensive tickets for the event $4,200 includes a spot at a VIP reception and a photograph with the vice president.
"Congressman Tom DeLay has been an exceptional leader on Capitol Hill and Vice President Cheney looks forward to helping his re-election effort," said Lee Anne McBride, a Cheney spokeswoman in Washington.
DeLay was indicted earlier this year on campaign finance-related charges in Travis County, an action that forced him to step down at least temporarily as House majority leader.
Former Rep. Nick Lampson is seeking the Democrat nomination to run against DeLay next year.
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Utah & Poverty

Did you know?

• More than 70 percent of workers do not earn enough to support a family with one working parent.
• About 30 percent of workers earn a wage that leaves them below the poverty level.
• About 70 percent of people with disabilities are unemployed.
• The poverty rate in Utah was 6.7% in 1999-2000. In 2003-04, the poverty rate was 9.5%.
• The average family size in Utah is 3.6 people.
• A "typical poor person" in Utah is Anglo and is a member of a two-parent, working family.
• The federal poverty guideline for a family of four people is $18,850 a year--or $1,571 a month.

From Utah Issues Center for Poverty Research & Action

I Begin

So, I now have a Blog....what does it mean. It means I have somewhere to write my thoughts, my rants, my raves. This Blog will have many threads....I am a lesbian living in Utah, I work in the conflict resolution field and I am a democrat...who is sick and tired of the Bush bullshit! I can't believe that we have this man as a president...what is wrong with us? Who voted for that idiot?
The one thing I like the most about working as a mediator...is that I have learned that I do not have the answers for anyone except myself ( and sometimes I struggle with those). So, who is Bush to decide, with his conservative buddies, what is best for anyone or everyone. A poem for BUSH.....

Listen

When I ask you to listen to me
and you start giving advice
you have not done what I asked.

When I ask you to listen to me
and you begin to tell me why I shouldn't feel that way
you are trampling on my feelings

When I ask you to listen to me
and you feel you have to do something to solve my problem,
you have failed me, strange as that may seem.

Listen! All I asked was that you listen.
not talk or do -- just hear me.
Advice is cheap; one dollar will get you both Dear Abby and
Billy Graham in the same newspaper.
And I can do for myself; I'm not helpless.
Maybe discouraged and faltering, but not helpless.

When you do something for me that I can and need
to do for myself, you contribute to my fear and weakness.

But, when you accept as a simple fact that I do feel what I feel,
no matter how irrational, then I can quit trying to convince
you and can get about the business of understanding what is
behind this irrational feeling. And when that is clear, the answers are obvious and I don't need advice. Irrational feelings make sense when we understand what's behind them.

Perhaps that's why prayer works, sometimes, for some people because
God is mute, and He does not give advice or try to fix things.
"They" just listen and let you work it out for yourself.

So, please listen and just hear me. And, if you want to talk, wait
a minute for your turn; and I'll listen to you.
Anonymous

It's about understanding...not knowing it all!