Both/and Win/Win Thinking for Creating Jobs, Part 2

Creating jobs is not about either government or the ‘private’ sector, corporations or small business, but both/and.  For example, co-ops. Such community focused business organizations now have a membership of 130 million Americans, employing 865,000 people according to the 10/22 issue of the Christian Science Monitor.  Evergreen Co-operatives in Cleveland, operates an industrial laundry service, a solar company, and an urban growing center to create living-wage jobs. Instead of allowing mechanization and high tech to displace jobs, such community focused business organizations tend to look for ‘human solutions’ to increase productivity.

 

Both/and, win/win opportunities such as those represented by community focused business organizations abound in our current political/economic situation. For example, our current emphasis on paid employment ignores ‘off the books’ unpaid work, such as child rearing, domestic labor and thousands of hours of volunteer service. A both/and approach such as reducing the workweek would reallocate available work among more people, giving people more time for their families and communities. Such a both/and approach could enable people to exchange the soulless accumulation of toys and ‘stuff’ for the more meaningful benefits of contributing one’s talents to family and community. Right now, volunteer matching services and time banks facilitate this.

 

People are yearning for a new economy that increases well being, improves employment, diminishes meaningless consumption, and lowers destructive impact on the environment. A shift from either/or thinking to both/and thinking can begin to make this kind of economy a reality.

Both/and Win/Win Thinking for Creating Jobs, Part 1

 

In the last post I wrote that, “If you always do what you always did, you’ll always get what you always got! Enough! The door opens inward. If you want things to be different, you be different. Quit looking out and blaming. Be the change you want to see! Begin shifting from either/or, win/lose thinking to both/and, win/win thinking now.”

 

With that in mind, consider the best way(s) to create jobs. Notice I wrote best ways. Typically in the either/or, win/lose model there is only one way, one size fits all. Clearly, common sense, which is so uncommon these days, would say that with our complex, rapidly changing, high tech world and economy there would have to be multiple ways of not just creating jobs, but doing everything. But no, in spite of that, we get hung up, especially during this win/lose election season, on the idea that there is only one way, either working on the demand side or the supply side.

 

What crap, either the demand side or the supply side! Why not both, simultaneously? Duh! Also, we have focused too much on big instead of small, on big corporations instead of small community business organizations like co-ops, credit unions and employee owned companies. Such community focused business organizations are not only more collaborative and democratic than the huge monolithic multi-national corporations, they are also more democratic and people centered.  

 

Community focused business organizations because they are place based and rooted in community also tend to bring a different kind of stability. They are not subject to the whims of predatory investors in search of quick, short term profits; the jobs cannot outsourced; and the co-op can’t be moved. 

Either/or Thinking Is THE Problem!

Either/or thinking and the competition that flows from it are, in and of themselves, the problem.

 

Thinking that there are only two sides to every story is very limiting. Not only does such thinking give power to extremists by draining it from the center, it also leads to stagnation and lack of growth.  Polarization around either ‘X’ or ‘Y’, denies most of life in the center and deprives us of the innovation and creativity vital to success.

 

Either/or polarization requiring people to take sides locks individuals and whole societies into non-productive traditions and orthodoxies.  Either my way or the highway!  What about all the other ways, all the other millions of possibilities? What if the blacksmiths, horse breeders and saddle-makers had the power oil and coal companies have today?  We’d still be using horses instead of horse power. 

 

Either/or thinking and the competition that flows from it alone, in and of themselves, keeps us from coming together and solving our problems. Either/or thinking and the competition that flows from it alone, in and of themselves, benefit the few at the expense of the many.

 

The decline of American power and the loss of the American dream show us the limits of either/or, win/lose thinking.  The door opens inward. If we want to see the American Dream restored, we’ve got to change how we think. We’ve got to ease off either/or thinking and the competition that flows from it, and switch to the more inclusive, flexible both/and, win/win thinking—the kind of thinking that says it’s not either my way or your way, but both ways.  Either/or thinking has a place, but not the dominant place it’s had in the past. We and the planet simply can no longer afford it. We need everybody’s talents, skills and cooperation. Turning people into either winners or losers deprives us of the ‘losers’’ talents and skills, and lately there seem to be more losers than winners.  We can’t afford that, it’s not viable and it’s not working. Enough!

 

Can’t we take responsibility for how we think, what we believe and how we see the world and try to think differently? The door opens inward. Can’t we try both/and, win/win thinking for a change? I think we can. After all, as Groucho said, “I love my cigar, but I take it out of my mouth once in awhile!” And, consider this: If you always do what you always did, you’ll always get what you always got! Enough! The door opens inward. If you want things to be different, you be different. Quit looking out and blaming. Be the change you want to see! Begin shifting from either/or, win/lose thinking to both/and, win/win thinking now.

The Door Opens Inward

Thinking about thinking; reflecting on our beliefs; challenging ourselves about our certainty and what we take to be true; opening our minds to other, new, and even ‘wrong’ ways of perceiving, knowing and being—is there any reason to do this, anything to be gained from it? Is it ‘good’ or ‘bad’ to expand our consciousness, be more inclusive more tolerant, more willing to learn and experience differences? Or is better to close our minds, cling to the ‘rugged cross,’ wall ourselves in and fear what’s new and different and ‘other’ and change itself?

 

Thinking about thinking is uncomfortable and disruptive. It threatens our ‘secure’ ego identities. Things are hard enough without having to bother or worry about how and what I’m thinking! I’ve got work to do, people to see and places to go. I just can’t take the time to be bothered right now.  Maybe later.

 

But what if we as a race, the human race, understood that the door opens inward? What if we came to realize that to improve human and planetary welfare we need to modify some of our own attitudes and ways of thinking? What if the door really does open inward and we really do have to think about thinking and modify some of our own attitudes and ways of thinking; to take individual responsibility for what and how we’re thinking? What if we can begin to make things better by realizing we have to stop pushing on the door—blaming, proselytizing, punishing and legislating, looking at everyone and everything but our own hearts and minds because the door opens inward?

 

Ask: “Am I contributing to wholeness and a world that works for everyone and everything, or am I selfishly arrogantly insisting on ‘my way or the highway,’ that what’s right for me and people like me is right for everyone and everything? Am I blaming, punishing and finger pointing? Am I willing to listen, learn, discuss and compromise? Am I willing to entertain the idea that the one God in me is the same one God in you and in everything?”

 

If that’s true, if the one God in me is the same one God in you and in everything, then you and your ideas, needs and wants even if they’re different, ‘wrong’ and against the Bible, are as righteous as my own and as worthy of respect. Am I willing for the sake of our common humanity and contributing a world that works for everyone and everything, willing to think about my thinking and realize that the door opens inward to God?

Mainstream Media Bias Against the President?

Does the Herald have a bias against Obama?

 

Consider the front page story that appeared about the last debate Tuesday morning.

On the front page [very significant] clearly labeled “news analysis” [also significant] is the headline: “The winner: maybe Obama.”  Hmmmm.  What does that suggest? To me, it casts doubt, creates suspicion,  hints that things are not as they seem, that perhaps there’s some manipulation or falseness involved.  You know, like the conspiracy to make the unemployment numbers seem better than they are.

 

Is this bias?  If one considers the levels of choice and decision making involved in getting something on the front page of a newspaper, perhaps it is. The writer, Marc Caputo, first decides on which words to use—what they infer and suggest and what they actually say. Caputo chooses “maybe.”  Hmmmmmm. Then his editor and his editor review and allow, “maybe.” The fact that it appears in the paper on the front page no less, suggests the management and owners of the Herald approve.

 

Then the story itself; it starts off with the first 5 or 6 paragraphs that seem to be pro-Romney. The next few paragraphs are a bit more neutral and slightly pro-Obama. Then it says, damning with faint praise: “And the president probably won, but he probably needed a far bigger win to change the trajectory of the race. He didn’t score the type of knockout that Romney did during the first debate. So Obama, who started to close the gap after the second debate, is likely to still trail in the polls….  A sign Obama was behind: He went on the attack early and often with one-liners and barbs. Romney held his own, but it’s tougher to score on defense.”

 

Poor, honest, hard-working, all-American Romney, struggling to hold his own against the vicious attacks of the nasty black man who isn’t even a citizen!

 

There’s no question of the slant in that article. Yes, the Herald labeled it “news analysis” which means opinion, but the fact of it’s being on the front page, suggests a strategic series of choices by those deciding what goes on the front page—the management team, to put it there.  Is this bias? If we know that most people don’t read the labels such as “new analysis” but only the headlines: “The winner: maybe Obama,” I think we have the kind of subtle bias that has not only characterized this campaign but all the coverage of the President.

 

The October 15 issue of the Christian Science Monitor in an article entitled: “Are the mainstream media biased?” has this paragraph near the end: “The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism crunched numbers late last year and found that coverage of Obama had a negative tone more often than did coverage of Republican presidential aspirants [right? That gang of charlatans and buffoons got more favorable coverage than the President? Can you believe that?].  As of this spring, the project was tracking the tone of coverage for Romney and Obama, and was finding a generally positive tone for Romney from March through May. For Obama, the tilt was more negative.”

 

So the negative bias seems to be real and pervasive, a constant drip, drip, drip clouding the perceptions of those casual, uninformed consumers of mainstream—I hate to agree with Palin but I will, “lame street” media. Are the casual, uninformed consumers of mainstream media also the uninformed voter and the much vaunted “independents” who still haven’t made up their minds? Maybe.

One More on Fixing Democracy, Part 3

This is the last in a series of posts on how to make our democracy work better based on an article, The Wisdom of Crowds, How to involve ordinary citizens in complex political decisions, by Marco Visscher, in The Intelligent Optimist magazine (formerly Ode).

 

“The Danes realizing over beers in a Copenhagen café 25 years ago never imagined their radical idea would strike such a chord.  ‘We usually meet skepticism in the science and industry communities, but it fades during the process,’ says Kluver.  He understands that experts tend to view social and political challenges as technical problems, while citizens raise ethical and cultural issues. ‘The conference usually provides a milestone for them to which they refer even years later,’ he says.

 

“Satheesh believes there’s a lesson to be learned: Talk to the people first, before you make political decisions. ‘Put all your cards down in front of them,’ he says. ‘Don’t cheat. Don’t hide. Let them make decisions.’”

One More on Fixing Democracy, Part 2

This is the next to the last in a series of posts on how to make our democracy work better based on an article, The Wisdom of Crowds, How to involve ordinary citizens in complex political decisions, by Marco Visscher, in The Intelligent Optimist magazine (formerly Ode).

 

“Over the years, these citizen panels, made up of 12 to 18 volunteers, have fueled debate inside and outside the Danish Parliament.  They’ve also inspired new legislation, including a ban on the use of DNA testing by employers and medical insurers. And the model has found its way to other countries, from South Korea to Zimbabwe. This fall, ordinary citizens will be consulted in anticipation of the U.N. conference on biodiversity.  According to Kluver, this proves that ‘citizen participation can, in fact, be brought to the global level as well.’

 

“The model has also been applied with illiterate farmers in India.  Plans by the Indian government to give biotechnology a prominent place in agricultural policy would have significant consequences for farmers in the state of Andhra Pradesh, yet they were not consulted. So in 2001, several NGOs decided to form a ‘jury’ of local farmers. For a week they discussed, based on expert interviews, the consequences of the government’s plans. The week resulted in a prajateerpu, or ‘people’s verdict.’

 

“P.V. Satheesh, director of the Deccan Development Society in Hyderabad, was there. ‘Great excitement was in the air,’ he remembers. ‘Never in their lives had the farmers been consulted on such issues to give a verdict as a jury. The farmers we had assembled didn’t have the social power to ask touch questions. They were very polite and asked questions softly and a bit circumspectly.’

 

“Nonetheless, a lobbyist for a seed breeder bellowed that he had come to give a presentation and ‘not to reply to your stupid questions.’ One government official refused to stand in front of the group of farmers and demanded a table and a chair.

 

“The farmers advised the government to put its biotechnology plans on hold. According to them, malnutrition in their region would decline only barely or not at all, while dependence on chemical fertilizers and pesticides would increase.  They called for self-sufficiency and a vision of agriculture that better embraced Indian values.”