THE FREELANCE STAR: WILDERNESS ‘COMMON GROUND’ A STEP FORWARD
Recently, members of historic preservationist groups as well as business men jointly signed a letter of understanding in Fredricksburg, VA. This letter laid out a way to move forward in the standoff between preserving and protecting historic ground in Orange County and the county’s desperate need for jobs and revenue. Both groups have worked hard to try to understand each other’s point of view. This conflict is about more than potential businesses construction could bring to the county. If Orange County cannot move forward with a long-range plan to sustain economic viability, the whole county will suffer. The preservation groups have offered to pay for a plan to study a way to attain the goals of the developers and protect Orange historic sites.
Question to the Blogosphere: In what ways could this newly found common ground improve the situation in Orange County, VA? Do you foresee any way to construct in Orange County without making preservationists upset? In other words, are the interests of the two groups mutually exclusive?
NATIONAL JOURNAL: DEPARLE: PLANNING FOR HEALTHCARE OVERHAUL RAMPING UP
Nancy-Ann DeParle, the White House health reform czar, is meeting with congressional staffers during Congress’ recess in order to draft legislation that will provide universal healthcare coverage and overhaul how care is delivered and paid for. Although there are opponents and supporters of Obama’s new plan for healthcare in the United States, DeParle is hopeful that there can be a compromise:
“When you list those two goals of keeping costs lower…and keeping the private sector honest or competitive, everyone agrees on that. And there are policy ways of getting around some of the objections people raise.”
The conversations about healthcare reform will continue after the recess ends as issues such as financing have to be smoothed out. DeParle will host a series of meeting with Congressional staffers as well as interested parties such as representatives from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, the inspector general’s office at HHS, the American College of Physicians and the American Hospital Association.
Question to the Blogosphere: What do you think of Obama’s new plans for health care reform in the United States? Do you think that DeParle can find enough common ground between the opponents and proponents of the plan to be able to take concrete actions by the end of Obama’s first term?
In Brooklyn’s Crown Heights, Ultra-Orthodox Jews took Pennsylvania Amish Christians from Lancaster County, PA on a walking tour of their world, saying their communities are drawn to each other with a commitment to simpler lifestyles. When the Hasidic tour guide first greeted the Amish with the Yiddish “Zei gazunt!” — “be healthy” — they understood, as the expression is derived from the German Sei gesund.
Question to the Blogosphere: Do you think that there are underlying issues that could cause conflict between the Amish and the Hasidic Jewish community in the United States? Should a search for common ground only be undertaken when there are tensions between two groups, or is a constant exercise of searching for common ground a part of any healthy society? In what ways are the Amish and Jews fundamentally different? Is it possible to embrace differences while appreciating commonalities, or does one of these actions take away from the other? How much does speaking the same language help in searches for common ground?
COMMON GROUND NEWS SERVICE: A VITAL MEDIUM
Khaled Diab writes in an entry for the Common Ground News Service this week about the importance of the media in conflicts. Media can act as spoilers to any hope of conflict resolution–depicting the “other” in stereotypes and perpetuating tensions. However, media can also be used in conflict zones, like that of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, by “[advancing] the quest for peace by challenging and changing people’s perceptions, building understanding, and mending fences”. Mr. Diab offers a few recommendations that could help media actors in the Middle East to increase the possibility for their craft to help people search for common ground:
1. The media should highlight positives and not just fixate on negatives, even though violence sells.
2. The media need to dedicate more space to building a deeper understanding of the cultural and social make-up of the other side of the conflict.
3. The media should be a channel for create and novel approaches to the conflict, as well as a conduit for debate–for example on online forums.
4. Journalists should exercise subjectivity in a balanced manner as they hold considerable influence in their communities.
Question to the Blogosphere: What do you think the role of the media should be in the developing conflicts around the world? Do you think they should be silenced for provoking further violence or is it important to maintain freedom of the press in conflict zones to prevent further agitation? Many remember incidences when media have been used to extent violence in conflicts–such as in Rwanda–but when have media been used to prevent, resolve, or manage conflicts? Do you agree with Mr. Diab that creative uses of media, such as the development of online forums for debates, can help people find common ground across conflicts, or does the facelessness of the internet and the ability for people to say what they want with few repercussions turn the virtual world violent as well?
WFMY NEWS: WHERE’S THE COMMON GROUND ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION?
One political science expert notes there’s a reason compromise on the issue of illegal immigration is so difficult. Both sides base their arguments on what they hold as uncompromising American values. One side emphasizes the rule of law and a sheriff’s duty to enforce it. Opponents claim liberty, opportunity, and the United States history of being a nation of immigrants.
Question to the Blogosphere: Is there potential for common ground to be found between proponents of relaxing immigration laws and those who support strict immigration laws? How can one country be a nation of immigrants and a nation that denies access to itself to immigrants? Is this an inherent contradiction of American society or is there an overlapping American ideal that makes these two seemingly opposing identity markers harmonious? What are the underlying interests of both sides of this debate? Is it possible that both sides want security and that they have different ideas of how to attain that?
SEARCH FOR COMMON GROUND OP-ED IN THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER: A REMINDER OF RADIO’S POWER
Since arriving in Rwanda six months ago, I have learned a lot about the power of radio.
On a recent Wednesday, I looked up from my Facebook page to watch six teenage girls leave my office in Kigali. They were off to the local radio station to produce Urungano (the local word for generation), a program addressing the trials and tribulations of Rwandan girls.
The girls typically begin their program with a teenage chat and then work their way into discussions of such issues as underage marriage and child labor – both real problems in Rwanda. Throughout the 30-minute weekly program, they move the conversation toward understanding how they, the next generation of Rwandan women, can empower themselves to build a better future.
Fifteen years ago last week, another movement sought to empower its people through the same Rwandan airwaves. “Rise up as a single man,” the radio blared. Then, the message was not to rise up for the betterment of the population. The voice was exhorting extremist Hutus to “rise up” and kill their fellow countrymen, their neighbors, and their friends – the minority Tutsis and “moderate” Hutus.
And that is exactly what happened. For 100 days, the radio in Rwanda fueled destruction, fervor, and hatred. The radio in Rwanda gave explicit directions on who should be killed and how they should die. The innocent victims and their murderers had families and children, many of whom were left orphaned by the genocide, and all of whom were left devastated beyond imagination.
But these children survived. And these children are Rwanda today. Rwanda is a country composed of young survivors – a country being led by its youth. And they lead with the power they have at their hands: radio.
Last week, in commemoration of the genocide, Urungano focused on reconciliation. The girls went into the countryside and found a mutual support group of genocide victims and perpetrators who, despite their tragic past of conflict, travel together from village to village to teach and model reconciliation. By selecting this topic, the girls sent a powerful message about their vision of the Rwanda they want to live in. And everyone in Rwanda is listening.
For us in the West, it is hard to imagine how relevant – how essential – radio still is to some. In Rwanda, radio is TV, Internet, newspapers, Facebook, and Twitter all wrapped up in one. Here, the potential of radio is unbelievable, almost as unbelievable as the genocide it fueled.
There is something about the sound of a single voice that entices our imagination to fill in the details. Radio leaves room for us. And where radio is the only major medium, the relationship between it and its listeners is a potent one.
Captured by a people, radio can either empower the growth or the destruction of a country. Every Wednesday, as I watch the young journalists leave my office for the station, I am aware that they are the power today. And I think, “Rise up as a single woman,” and develop your country to its potential.
Chris Plutte is the Rwanda country director for Search for Common Ground, a global nonprofit dedicated to transforming the way the world deals with conflict.
