Monday, April 14, 2008

Conflict Coaching

Conflict Coaching is a new skill I have been learning and practicing over the past six months. Many ask me "what is it" and I have had a hard time responding.... so here is another try at describing what Conflict Coaching is and what it is not.

The best overall definition of Conflict Coaching I have found is
"Conflict Coaching is a structured process that helps people to develop and enhance their skills, knowledge and competencies to effectively engage in and manage interpersonal conflict."
  • Conflict Coaching is a structured process in which the Coach helps the Coachee reach their own goals.
  • Conflict Coaching is based on the value of self-determination and is a process in which the Coachee is guided to find their own solutions.
  • Conflict Coaching is focused on the future.
  • The Coach provides the Coachee support, accountability and leads them through a methodical process that is task and action orientated.

Conflict Coaching is NOT Mentoring, Therapy or Consultation.

  • In a Mentoring relationship, the Mentor gives the Mentee advice and helps them to decide the steps they need to take to move to the next level of their development.
  • In Therapy, the Therapist assists the Client to gain understanding and awareness of the sources of their concerns and/or problems. Therapy also tends to be focused on the past.
  • Consultation is a process in which the Consultant is giving the Client advice in regard to what they need to do and how they should do it.

Coaching is an excellent process for those who are struggling with a current conflict situation or want to examine the way in which they deal with conflict as a whole. The process typically takes between four and seven hours and is completed in one hour sessions. The Coaching can be done in person or over the phone and one to two sessions are scheduled each week.

For more information on Conflict Coaching visit http://www.kathyelton.com/


Wednesday, April 02, 2008

Be Different

There are many professions in the justice system that tell people what to do with their lives.... Judges, attorneys, court commissioners, arbitrators and early neutral evaluators to name a few. The legal system also tends to tell people what they can and can't do and how they can and can't do it.... There are certain forms, timelines, formats and protocols they must follow to appropriately file something with the court.

As mediators, we have the opportunity to be different. We have the opportunity to be client-centered and support their self-determination. My experience in serving as a mediator is that parties often don't know what to do when you won't tell them what they should do, give your opinion about their situation or tell them what you would do in their situation..... Yes, they will ask.... but does this mean we should answer? I say "NO." We should reframe the moment when they ask as a moment to push them... to challenge them... to help them to think about their situation differently... OR we can be like the rest of the system and we can tell them what to do or what we think about their situation. In sharing our thoughts and opinions about their case, we take the control away from the parties once again and become like all the others in the legal system where the focus too often is about resolving the case, not allowing the parties to resolve the issues.

I hope we, as mediators, can continue to offer a different process to parties who come to us for mediation. I hope we can sharpen our skills as mediators so that when parties are at an impasse and they look to us for help... our help comes in a form that builds the parties ability to consider ways to resolve their own dispute and we don't give into temptation and take the easy way out..... telling them what to do.



Saturday, March 15, 2008

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Quantum Questions

In a podcast in which Kathlyn Hendricks, Ph.D. & Gay Hendricks, Ph.D. are interviewed about relationships they share Five Quantum Questions. I think these questions can be useful in a mediation session so I wanted to share them.... They are:

1. Am I willing to resolve this?

2. How is this conflict/feeling familiar?

3. What can I say about this situation that is unarguable right now?

4. What do I really want? Specifically....

5. What is the simplest step you can take to move toward what you want?

I think these questions can be used by us when we are acting as mediators as well as we can ask the questions of ourselves when we are struggling with an issue....

For more information on the Hendricks and their work visit their website: http://www.hendricks.com/

Saturday, March 01, 2008

The Cost of Divorce

Family Law
Kinder, Gentler Collaborative Divorce Also Costs Less
Posted Dec 18, 2007, 02:48 pm CST By Martha Neil
A kinder, gentler method of getting divorced has won fans among both clients and counsel. But it has yet to win over some traditionalists, who wonder, for instance, why collaborative divorce must include a promise not to litigate. (Those who violate the ban on courtroom battle have to start over again with new counsel.)
“I have no issue … with two lawyers sitting down with two clients to work out a deal, but why it’s necessary to wrap all these conditions around it is beyond me,” David S. Goldberg, a Gaithersburg, Md., family law mediator tells the Daily Record, a Maryland legal and business publication.
Nonetheless, an increasing number of soon-to-be-former spouses and their lawyers are embracing collaborative divorce, as well as do-it-yourself divorce and mediation, in an effort to eliminate unnecessary animosity, reports the Associated Press.
"Most clients in a dispute are looking for an honorable peace, not war," writes David Hoffman, a Boston lawyer, in a Christian Science Monitor op-ed piece about collaborative law practice. "Collaborative lawyers can be just as zealous about seeking such a peace as litigators are about victory in the courtroom."
A recent American Bar Association ethics opinion (PDF) provides important support for collaborative divorce, by finding collaborative law agreements consistent with lawyers' obligations to serve their client's best interest, notes Hoffman, who chairs the Collaborative Law Committee of the ABA Section of Dispute Resolution. (What Hoffman describes as a "maverick" Colorado Bar Association ethics opinion earlier this year reaches a different conclusion than the ABA and several other state bar associations, however.)
Cost may also be a motivating factor in the quest for a peaceful resolution of a problem marriage: The Boston Law Collaborative, where Hoffman works, recently analyzed 199 of its divorce cases. It found that mediation had a median cost of $6,600, followed by $19,723 for collaborative divorce, $26,830 for a divorce settlement negotiated by counsel, and $77,746 for a litigated divorce.

Friday, February 29, 2008

Manipulation? Mediation?

Do Mediators Use Manipulation?

In the mediation community there has been a long standing debate regarding the manipulative nature of mediation. In the past week while conducting a Basic Mediation Training I found myself thinking a few times…. “Wow, am I telling these people to be manipulative?”

How does the possibility of manipulation enter into the mediation process? I believe there is a possibility of it in many areas……
Questions that are asked or not asked. As a mediator we make decisions throughout the mediation process regarding the questions we may ask, how we ask them, who we ask them too and something I think we don’t think of often enough…. The questions we decide not to ask.

The Tone we use in the mediation session. So much of communication is non-verbal and some of that is the tone of voice we use while interacting with the parties. Our tone of voice can set the “tone” of the mediation session. Different tones will set a different environment and we as the mediator are in control of that.

The use of Silence. Like the questions we ask or do not ask, the way we use silence, when we use silence and with whom we use silence can have an effect on the mediation session. The choice of the mediator to not use silence at a certain point in the mediation can also have an effect.

The use of Touch. This is a “touchy” subject. At times when I mediate I may reach across and touch a participant on the arm. This can be a gesture of support, a way to intervene and stop negative behavior, or can be used in a humorous moment.

Don’t get me wrong…. I don’t think that it is a bad thing if at times we employ the use of strategies that could be seen by others as manipulation. As with everything in mediation and in life, I think the key to this issue is being aware of what you are doing and why you are doing it. There are some ways in which the techniques listed above can support and enhance the mediation process and the outcome for the parties.

For example, at times the use of questions can be used to Challenge the Thinking of the participants and/or encourage them to Think in a New Way. This is the goal of mediation in my mind. If we are not assisting the parties to explore new ideas or solutions or if we are not challenging their thinking on an issue or conflict, what are we doing? We have to have a strategy in order to help the parties move down the road to possible resolution.

In reality we do control some of the outcome in certain mediation sessions. We do it differently than other professions…... It is different because we do not overtly give advice or an opinion. Does this difference ensure self determination? If we are asking or not asking leading questions, how does this impact the outcome of a given session? How do mediators reconcile this as being better than active advice?

I think we reconcile it by remembering:
Open ended questions can give parties more latitude than direct advice.
Suggestive questions are less pressure than direct advice.
“What if” questions help parties to explore the possibilities.
And finally, no one ever has to agree to any terms of settlement…….

Sunday, February 24, 2008

Leading the Blind





I had a dream about my dog Maddie last night. Maddie died in March of 2006 and she taught me many things about mediation and working with people. Maddie was a mini-schnauzer and was raised with her litter mate sister Molly until Molly died on 9/11/2001.

Shortly after losing her sister, Maddie became ill and early in 2002 was diagnosed with insulin dependent diabetes. She then developed cataracts and went blind (see that sweet blind stare in her eyes). In the end her going blind was harder on me than it was on her... she did not miss a beat. So what does this have to do with mediation....?



As Maddie was going blind I found a book about Living with a Blind Dog to help "me" cope. When you have a blind animal you often have the urge to help them..... and as in mediation, sometimes helping them is actually hindering them.


One of the best things I learned from the book was that you should NEVER pick up a blind dog and transport it to a new place and put it down.... you may see this as helping, like carrying your dog from the front yard into the house.... or from one room to another in the house. In reality it confuses the dog. Blind dogs have the ability to cognitively map their surroundings, so Maddie always knew where she was and what obstacles were ahead of her. By picking her up and moving her somewhere new and just putting her down.... it would confuse her. She would not know where she was or how she got there..... it would take her a minute to adjust and figure out what just happened. Instead of picking her up, it was best for her if I would stoop down and lead her to where we were headed, that way she learned for herself how to move through the world and when she ended up somewhere, she knew how she got there.


This is the same in mediation and one of the reasons I do not believe in giving suggestions or my opinion to the parties. The parties in a mediation need to know how they reach the resolution, if they come to one... and they need to know the obstacles if they are unable to reach resolution. As mediators we may feel the urge to be helpful and pick the parties up and drop them off at a resolution that we think makes sense. The problem.... when the resolution starts falling apart the parties are not sure how or why they came to it, so they are unable to problem solve keeping it together and they don't "own" it. So, next time you are tempted to pick up the parties and take them to the resolution room, remember my baby "Maddie".... and stoop down and encourage them to the path of resolution and let them find the way themselves.

Sunday, February 17, 2008

The Language of Energy



The Language of ENERGY
The white pooch is my boy "Frito"

Excerpts from Cesar’s Way by Cesar Millan

Thoughts for Mediators:
As a mediator, we have to take into account the language of Energy, our own energy and that of the participants in the mediation. There is no denying that in every mediation session, there is energy coming from every party. How you contain and move that energy as a mediator will have a great effect of the mediation session.
Things you should know about the "Language of Energy"
*There is a language that all animals speak, without even knowing it, including the human animal.
* All animals are born knowing this language instinctually. Even human beings are born fluent in this universal tongue, but we tend to forget it because we are trained from childhood to believe that words are the only way to communicate.
* The irony is, even though we don’t think we know the language anymore, we are actually speaking it all the time. Unknowingly, we are broadcasting in this tongue 24-7.
* Others can still understand us (humans and animals), they read us loud and clear, even when we’re unaware that we’re communicating.
When things become emotional in a mediation session, the energy is flowing. No one can hide the energy they are experienceing when they become emotional. As a mediator, you have to be aware of this energy, even when the parties are trying to hide it..... it is still in the room.
Energy and Emotion:
* Energy is a language of emotion.
* All the animals around you, including other humans, are reading your energy every moment of the day.
* You can say anything that pops into your mind, but your energy cannot and does not lie.
The goal as a mediator is to master the skill of having "Calm-Assertive Energy." This energy will give the participants the sense of security they need to speak freely and know thay you are going to keep the space safe. It is also an energy that is not overwhelming and will not shut participants down.
The Calm-Assertive Personality:
*This is the Energy a medaitor wants to portray.
*A calm-assertive leader is relaxed but always confident that he or she is in control.
*A calm-assertive personality is relaxed, even-tempered, but undeniably powerful, and always in charge.
Cesar shares some observations he has made over the years in regard to who animals will follow as a leader and who humans will follow.... My conclusion... our pets should be allowed to vote :~)
Power of the Pack:
* Animals won’t follow soft or weak energy.
* Animals won’t follow compassionate energy or a lovable leader.
* Animals will not follow overly excited energy.
* Animals will not follow an unstable leader, humans will.
* Animals will follow only a stable leader.
To learn more about Energy and Calm-Assertive Energy check out Cesars books.

Saturday, February 09, 2008

Spotting a Lack of Safety

How does a mediator create safety? The advice given to those in a "Cruical Conversation" by the authors of the book "Crucial Conversations" (check out the book at http://astore.amazon.com/rcblog-20?node=2&page=2) is to step out of the content of the conversation and take care of the conditions of the conversation, then move back to the content. Don’t stay stuck in what’s being said when things are not going well, step out of the conversation, fix what is wrong with the conditions of the conversation and then step back in. The belief is that conversations go downhill when one or both parties in the conversation are not feeling safe.


So how does a mediator create safety in a mediation session? First, you have to know how people may act when they are not feeling safe in a mediation session. That is one of the problems... People who are not feeling safe act out in negative ways like yelling, finger pointing, arguing, becoming defensive, or totally shutting down and going silent.


Sometimes a mediator may take these kinds of behaviors to mean that the party is not cooperative or not trying to resolve the issues in the mediation. But, before you make these assumptions, think to yourself.... is this about safety? Should the mediator intervene and enforce ground rules, challenge the behavior of the party? Or should the mediator think about ways to create safety, make sure the party is feeling heard, take the fear out of the room?


Next time you are in a situation when a party in the mediation appears to be uncooperative... step out of the content and before you intervene ask yourself... Is this about safety? or something else.....????

Friday, February 01, 2008

Utah Supreme Court Opinion on Mediation

February 1, 2008
An interesting case out of the Utah Supreme Court today....

The case was a civil case which involved a man being injured and he filed suit against the company for negligence. The case went to mediation and in the mediation a settlement was discussed, the mediator prepared a Memo of Understanding (MOU).. but the man who was injured would not sign it because there was a term in the MOU he did not agree with. The opposing side did not believe an agreement had been reached and the injured man took them to court to try to enforce the oral agreement. The trail court judge ordered the parties in the mediation to disclose what had happened in the mediation and if an agreement had been made. The attorney who was representing the company refused to disclose this information. The trail court found that she had to disclose the information and she appealed this decision to the Supreme Court to decide if she had to disclose the content of the mediation.

The Utah Supreme Court: First, upheld the confidential nature of mediation and ruled that the attorney did not have to and could not be compelled to disclose information from the mediation session... which is great news for the mediation world.
They second ruled that an agreement made in mediation is not enforceable unless and until it is put in writing and all involve parties sign it. We have been struggling with this issue in Utah for years.... the binding nature of a mediated agreement and if it matters if the parties sign it or not... This opinion has now answered that question.

It was a good day for the mediation community in Utah in that the Supreme Court supported the confidential nature of the process and outlined when an agreement reached in mediation is binding.

In short they found "we expressly recognize the importance of maintaining confidentiality in the mediation process and hold that Utah law requires agreements reached in mediation to be reduced to a writing and signed by all the parties to the agreement in order for the agreement to be enforceable by a court."
The decision was written by the Chief Justice Christine Durham.

To read the complete opinion go to
http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Reese2020108.pdf

Saturday, January 26, 2008

Helping Someone Gain Insight

I listen to many Pod Casts. I recently listened to one in which David Rock, the author of a new book called "Quiet Leadership" is interviewed. In the book he talks about how leaders should be taught how to help their staff think, instead of just tell them what to do. He talks about ways in which we can "help people think better, not tell them what to do". This style of leadership is connected to mediation in that as mediators our job is to help people improve their thinking, not do the thinking for them.

David Rock outlines six steps to help some one improve their thinking..... Here is a short note on each...

1. The goal should be to help the other person "think about thinking." To step back from
the details and drama of a situation and help the person think better.

2. Listen for Potential. When you are working with someone who is struggling..... help them
to focus on what they are doing well, the positive.

3. Speak with Intent...Simplify. Help the person to feel safe and comfortable. Think about
what you are saying and how you are saying it. Keep it short and simple, do or say in 15
minutes what it could take 60 minutes to do or say. Focus on what is Useful versus what is
Interesting.

4. Dance toward Insight. Do not tell the other person what to do and then try to convince
them it is the right thing.... guide them on a process to find their own answer.

5. Create New Thinking. This is a great step which is hard to outline. You begin with the
persons current reality and explore different ways in which the conversation could proceed.
The trick is to watch for the topic which sparks the persons energy to rise... that is your sign
to move in that direction.

6. Follow-up. This is another great piece in the interview. To make a change you have to
focus your attention on that thought and/or intention everyday. When you focus the brain,
you build new neural connections....

This is a great book not only for leaders but for mediators. David Rock is a Life Coach and believes that people want to make decisions and they want to have new insights to their concerns and problems. Most leaders, and I would say most of us as humans, are trained or learn to tell people what to do, we are not good at helping them have insights.

If you want to listen to the full interview, it is only about 30 minutes long, here is a link
http://results.podbean.com/2007/02/18/landed-fm-radio-interview-with-david-rock-ceo/

Let me know what you think.......

If you are interested in the book check it out at my Amazon store, the link is
http://astore.amazon.com/rcblog-20

Monday, December 17, 2007

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.

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

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.

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

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..........

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

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

Sunday, August 06, 2006

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

Friday, December 23, 2005

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.

Monday, December 12, 2005

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/

Monday, December 05, 2005

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