How to cure beef in your apartment.

Folks, here’s an article in the current TimeOut New York about roommate conflicts, with tips by yours truly and my colleague Sheila Sproule, Prez of the Association for Conflict Resolution of Greater New York.   

Dealing with roommates: How to resolve three common space-sharing problems.

1.  Lack of respect for common areas.  Whether you live with a Craigslist-sourced stranger who blares thrash metal in the living room at 2am or a high-school pal who’s suddenly stopped doing the dishes, you’ve got a grade-A roommate beef. To avoid noise issues, Sheila Sproule, president of the Association for Conflict Resolution—Greater New York Chapter (acrgny.org), recommends discussing ground rules ahead of time—ideally over drinks to keep things casual. Conflict-resolution expert Brad Heckman, who runs the New York Peace Institute (nypeace.org), adds: “Just be clear about what works for you, and ask about their preferences.”

2.  Neglecting to pay rent or utilities.  Both Sproule and Heckman emphasize that conversation is key. Sproule offers a few pointers, depending on whose name is on the official documents: If it’s both of you, you’re collectively liable for the missing funds, so remind the other person that the landlord could sue the two of you. If your roommate is flying solo, but you’re nervous about the repercussions, a calmly conveyed reminder might be all that’s necessary. If it’s just you, then you’re in a bind. Sproule reiterates that a direct conversation should be the first step—“maybe they’re not getting paid regularly at work, or they’re in a temporary tough spot”—but if it’s a reoccurring problem, you may need to involve your landlord. Lest things get ugly, Heckman chimes in with a couple of strategies to diffuse the situation: “Listen without interrupting, even if what you’re hearing is absolute baloney. Repeat what the person has just said, so he or she knows you’ve understood their point of view. And go easy on the venting.”

3.  Playing the passive-aggressive card.  This sort of under-the-radar hostility is funny only when it shows up on Post-it notes via Tumblr. In real life, it can lead to a lot of unnecessary angst. Heckman’s tip: “Give specific, constructive commentary on how you see the situation, and pay attention to your body language, so that you’re not unintentionally sending signals that you’re closed off to his or her grievances.” Sproule adds, “Be direct and cite specific examples of behavior.” The more explicit you are, the less wiggle room you leave for the other person to dodge the issue.

PS   If our sage advice doesn’t pan out — try mediation. New York Peace Institute, and our mediator friends nationwide, loves getting in the middle of roommie beefs.

 

extremely sketchy and incredibly graphic.

I recently joined NYC Sketchnoters Group, and tonight is our second meeting. Sketchnoting is all about using usual visual images —  drawings, symbols, shapes, icons, color, etc. — to record ideas and convey meanings.  For visual thinkers, it’s a great companion piece to traditional chicken scratch note-taking.  Visuals for Change founder Amanda Lyons helms the group, and for a mere 10 bucks, you get yourself an evening of shame-free sketchnoting and infotaining interactive exercises.

Above is my sketch from an activity in which Amanda gave us a couple of minutes to illustrate of a concept of our choice.  What I was going for was how, even in the most volatile arguments, there are often common, overlapping interests below the surface positions. This is a core concept of our work at New York Peace Institute, and of mediation in general.

Graphic Facilitation is a variation of sketchnoting in which a facilitator uses imagery to capture and map out what’s going on in a meeting — often used in visioning, strategic planning, problem-solving, prioritizing, and addressing intragroup dynamics. As groups are chatting, brainstorming, or arguing, a graphic facilitator tracks the conversation with images that memorialize the conversation, allow participants to see things in a new light, and stimulate creative option generation.

You needn’t be a Left Bank artiste to be a graphic facilitator, but you’ll need a pretty good visual vocabulary, the ability to think on your feet, a strong sense of spatial relations, and a good set of markers  De rigeur in graphic facilitation: fabulous listening skills — being tuned into your audience so that your drawings truly reflect what folks have said

As a visual thinker and amateur-ish artist, I use my drawings when I train and teach.  So I figured I’d ace this whole sketchnoting thing.  But I quickly learned that it’s a whole other magilla from propping up pre-made drawings before an audience. Spontaneously coming up with appropriate, comprehensible drawings; building a visual lexicon; grasping the importance of layout — under time pressure and the furrowed-browed gaze of your participants — is not easy. (I’ve drawn countless birds in my day — but in the midst of a rapidfire sketchnoting exercise, the best I could do was a grotesque beaked blob.)

It’s great when mediators use visual thinking during sessions — for example, encouraging neighbors involved in noise disputes to sketch the layout of their apartments. We sometimes cover our mediation tables with paper, markers, and crayons to promote clients’ creativity.

We’d love to see more of this graphic content in our mediation rooms, and empower the city’s peacebuilders to tap into their visual side. So, on May 12th, we’re teaming up with the wonderful ImageThink to offer a full-day graphic facilitation training to the NYC peacebuilding community.  They’ll provide an intensive, interactive, workshop that will give folks the basic tools they need to incorporate visual thinking in their practice.  Stay tuned…details will be on our website soon, but meanwhile, feel free to contact our fabulous Training Director, Allison Attenello at aattenello@nypeace.org if you’re interested in hearing more.

Roma mania, Mona, Romania.

Folks, well into the 21st century, our Roma (commonly known as Gypsy) brothers and sisters are still subjected to all kinds of segregation, discrimination, and marginalization worldwide.  Before my New York Peace Institute days, I had the honor of working on this initiative to promote Roma inclusion in civil society in Eastern Europe.

So, I’m delighted to let you know that on March 8th we’re hosting a free screening of Our School, a fabulous documentary about Roma youth in Romania, in cooperation with Lysistrata, the gender working group at NYU’s Center for Global Affairs. Director Mona Nicoara will be on hand for Q&A.  Seating is limited, so please RSVP toute suite. Meanwhile, here’s an interview with Mona by Rachel Hart, from the Open Society Institute’s blog (reproduced with actual permission!)

Mona Nicoara is producer and director of Our School, a film about three Roma children who are part of a pioneer initiative to desegregate the local schools in a small Transylvanian town. The film, which received a grant from the Open Society Foundations, will have its North American premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York City later this month. I asked Mona to discuss her film and the challenges facing school desegregation in Europe.

Roma in Europe face myriad problems, from widespread discrimination and unemployment to poor access to health care. Why did you choose to focus on the issue of school segregation for your film?

It’s a truism that education is the key to unlocking the vicious cycle of disenfranchisement, discrimination, and poverty. When it comes to Roma, we, the non-Roma, tend to throw clichés around, unthinkingly: “Get a job!” or “Learn to behave in the world!” But how are you to get a job and learn how to function in the world if the world rejects you at the first contact? If you’re not given a chance in first grade, what’s the likelihood that, as an adult, you are going to access a better life than your parents? How are you supposed to get out of poverty if you don’t have any skills?

But the answer is also personal: Guilt. I went to elementary school with Roma, back in Romania. I saw them drop out after primary school, or simply disappear from the more competitive high schools that me and my friends were going to. As an adolescent, I never investigated why this was happening. I never even paid attention.

But by the time I started to look for schools for my own children (we were living in Hungary back then), I had worked for quite a while as a human rights activist, and I was keenly aware of the fact that the “good” schools we were looking at had virtually no Roma students, not even in the lower grades. I wanted to go back and see where it all went wrong. I wanted to understand what we need to do differently.

What were you expecting to see before you visited Târgu Lăpus, and what, if anything, were you not prepared for?

I confess I went there with at least one preconceived notion: I expected to see Romanian parents oppose integration, as the non-Roma parents had done in other places—in Croatia, Hungary, but also in other towns in Romania. And I had a keen awareness of historical precedent. I didn’t expect anything like the Civil Rights–era anti-integration demonstrations in Little Rock, or the violent anti-busing protests in Boston—this was, after all, a small, peaceful Transylvanian town—but I expected to see some resistance or discomfort on the part of the parents.

So the smooth acceptance of the Romanian parents took us by surprise. It wasn’t just mere tolerance, there was genuine empathy.

In Our School you follow three children—Alin, Beni, and Dana. Tell me how you met the children and their families, and what were your impressions of them?

When we first arrived in town, at dusk, we asked several people where the segregated school was. We could not find it, so we assumed we had gotten the kind of imprecise directions that people who live all their life in a place often  give. As it turned out, we had passed by the segregated school several times in our car, but didn’t think that the one-room crumbling exposed-brick building we kept driving by could house a school. Our driver even said, in all earnestness: “I thought that was a public toilet.”

We parked in front of the school, which is right at the edge of a small Roma settlement, and started looking around. These two large, imposing Roma men, who I later realized were Alin’s father and uncle, came over, identified themselves as leaders of the Roma community, and asked us if we wanted them to unlock the school for us to look around.

As soon as we explained what we wanted to do, they started telling stories about their own time in the segregated school—about how the building was made up of bricks hand-crafted by their grandparents, about how Roma in town had always been told that their children belong in the “Gypsy school,” about how it had always been a bad place where kids were kept “like cows in the field,” without being taught anything or challenged to succeed in any way. Despite their anger, they were matter-of-fact, even funny. And there was hope in the air, as the desegregation project was just about to begin.

We didn’t meet the kids until the next day, when we came back during school hours. Dana stuck out right away—at sixteen, she was the oldest in class, and she towered over all the other kids. She was so proud to be the best student in class and to be working after school as domestic help in a Romanian home. And she was just such a typical, coquettish teenager—we would have had to be blind not to realize she was a wonderful character.

Alin reminded me right away of my older son: spirited, very physical, mischievous without being rude, and extremely funny. He was so happy to have someone listen to him. I suspect that’s because he is the middle child in a line-up of nine kids, all with strong personalities, and he doesn’t get much air time at home. We connected to him because he has so much awareness, and he is such an incredible storyteller, and such a great ham! He kept showing up, out of nowhere, mid-shoot. My co-director Miruna Coca-Cozma joked that we couldn’t do this film without Alin even if we wanted to—he is practically in every shot!

Beni is a much quieter presence. It took us a while to realize how thoughtful he was, how much hope and strength resides inside him. I think he gets a lot of that from his own parents, who have faith—in him, in God, and in the idea that all people should be equal. He always asked the hardest questions: “Why is this class for Gypsies only?”  “Why don’t we get the same treatment as Romanians?” In a way, just like the two other Roma children, he chose us—rather than the other way round.

Last but not least, the Romanian boy who befriended Alin and Beni, Boga, is one of those cool kids everyone looks up to. He’s a very good student, so teachers love him. He’s a soccer fiend, so all his schoolmates want to play with him. He’s friendly and unprejudiced, so the Roma children naturally sought his company. And he’s quite a girl magnet, too!

We met his mother, by accident, before we met him: She makes the best, most addictive fried dough in town, and she has a great sense of humor, so we became her regular customers before we even started shooting. She was amused by the attention that her son got from the Roma kids, but never truly bothered by it, and she never discouraged him from hanging out with them.

What do you think viewers will be most surprised to learn about the situation in Târgu Lăpus?

I think it is hard for people who see the film to understand how the current school situation has been so easily accepted by everyone there. If you experience the story from the perspective of the children, as we did, and as our audiences do, you see hope for a better future gradually extinguished within a few short years. But the adults in town did not experience any change—in fact, they only saw more of the same. Everyone, from the Roma parents to the school administrators and the city hall, sees what happened as just par for the course.

There is no tension in the town about it, no sense that what happened, happened on purpose, or that a single person or group should be held responsible. There is no sense of ill will. In a way, this is the true horror of unexamined racism: It shapes the course of events on its own, even going against the peaceful spirit of a small town like that, where everybody knows everybody’s name and no one could even imagine harming a whole generation on purpose.

The children in the film face incredible hurdles just to attend a desegregated school. From your perspective, how can the problem of school segregation for Roma children be resolved?

I wish I had a simple answer, but I took on this project precisely because I knew that we needed to understand the complexity of the problem before we can even begin to think about solutions. It is clear to me that some aspects can be addressed by laws or by courts—matters of principle, like nondiscrimination, resource allocation, and a firm recognition that separate can never be equal where education for Roma is concerned.

There are also structural issues that need to be addressed: housing, the status of Roma settlements (which ties into access to basic utilities such electricity or water), or the availability of early childhood education.

And then there is the battle for our hearts and minds, which is extremely local and personal. I now believe that everyone, every single stakeholder has to be brought on board. Non-Roma parents should be helped to see the value of exposing their children to different cultures, of teaching them empathy, of imbuing them with good values early on. Roma parents have to have faith that their children can succeed even if they themselves did not.

This sounds simpler in theory than it is in practice: It is harder to imagine success if you have never seen it, if you have never experienced a supportive school, or if you have never had a Roma role model to look up to. And Roma children have to learn to push through rejection, rather than give up and retreat. That’s a huge burden for these children, and they’re not going to make it through on their own—they need their parents, their siblings, their friends, their neighbors to cheer them on.

Teachers have to learn that there is an inherent value in a multicultural classroom that goes far beyond test scores, and that a good learning environment for all will raise performance for all. But they can’t do that alone either. They need support from school administrators, local authorities, central decision-makers—things like additional training, additional resources or teaching assistance. Integrating Roma need not be an unmanageable, unfair task for the teachers; instead, it should become one of the ways in which they can get job satisfaction.

Finally, there’s everybody else—local priests, mayors, soccer coaches, you name it. It really takes a village to raise a child, and we all need to learn to be more thoughtful about the messages we send to our children—both Roma and non-Roma. We tend not to think enough about that, to fall back on received notions and racist baggage that we ourselves inherited. The current structures are premised on our inertia—and cannot be broken unless they are confronted with thoughtful consideration, respect for individuals and their rights, an understanding of root causes of segregation, and a willingness to contribute to change.

You can’t really do all of that from a distance—you can do some of that work in Brussels or in Strasbourg, you can take care of some of the issues in national parliaments and central ministries, but the hardest, most important battles are going to be fought locally, almost door-to-door, and the solutions will almost always have to be tailored to the specifics of each place.

peace core values.

I teach a course at New York University’s Center for Global Affairs called “How to Build Your Own NGO.”  My aim is to provide students with practical, nuts and bolts skills they’ll use in the non-profit sector, to augment their wingnut and screws theoretical learning. (I wrote more about gradschools here.)  I  spend a chunk of time spieling about developing core values – the ethos underlying an organization’s vision, mission, strategy, and organization culture.  

So, I wanted to share New York Peace Institute’s core values, which we built by consensus across the organization (with the help of our friends at Big Duck).  I keep them posted over my desk, and I read them daily, as a constant reminder that even the most mundane, bureaucratic tasks (of which I perform many) are in service to promoting a peaceful NYC. It never fails to put a pep in my step.  Here goes:

Everything we do comes out of the core belief that active peacemaking requires direct, respectful, and creative communication. We’re here to get in the middle when people or communities have disputes, and our work is driven by these six values:

Optimism

We see every conflict as an opportunity for better understanding. Mediation is a valuable tool, so we strive to make it more accessible to everyone.

Transparency

We encourage openness—from ourselves and from people in disputes—because direct communication is the best way to find solutions.

Empathy

We don’t simply remain neutral—we strive to understand and honor the different points of view of the individuals, parties, or communities in conflict.

Empowerment

We create a private, collaborative environment to help individuals and communities find practical solutions to their disputes. We also help them gain the tools to handle future conflicts.

Excellence

We demand nothing but the best from ourselves on behalf of the people we work with—whether in mediation, in trainings, or during any other discussions.

Creativity

We think differently—and we encourage the people we work with to think differently—to find innovative, and perhaps unexpected, solutions to make New York City a more peaceful place.

Guest blogger Ashok Panikkar on the right to offend.

Here’s a guest post from my friend and peacebuilding agent provocateur Ashok Panikkar, Executive Director of the Indian conflict resolution organization Meta-Culture.  I’m not sure I agree with everything he says below. But he is quite persuasive…even moreso in person, where he’ll augment his reasoning with infectious laughter and impish charm.

FREE SPEECH, THE RIGHT TO OFFEND, AND DIALOGUE

Why is it that when a book is banned, a movie producer shot, or a publishing house fire-bombed for publishing a book or a cartoon, mediators and professional bodies of Conflict Resolution practitioners don’t protest?

Why, when a special interest group threatens violence against someone whose speech offends its members, don’t peace builders write op-ed pieces or burn up the on-line forums in support of the seeming offender?

Having been part of the mediation and peace building community for the last couple decades, I’m guessing that if I asked my colleagues these questions, they would give one or more of the following answers:

  1. We mediators and peace builders are ‘neutrals.’  What if tomorrow we were called on to mediate between, say, an Ayotallah and a cartoon publisher out of Holland?
  2. ‘Respect’ for others requires that we not offend cultural or religious sensitivities.  Anything that might be construed as offensive speech is out of bounds.
  3. As people concerned about justice, equity and the value of multi-cultural societies, we fear that if we allow minorities to be targeted by satire or criticism, we will render them even more vulnerable to abuse and perhaps even violence.
  4. ‘Perception is reality.’ When people are hurt by offensive or provocative speech, that is their reality, and so the speech must be condemned.
  5. Criticizing or condemning practices of groups is not only culturally insensitive, but tantamount to inciting violence against the group.
  6. Pluralistic societies must have boundaries on free speech in order to maintain social harmony.

While these may seem reasonable, at first glance, we should not accept them without serious examination.

When mediators and peace builders remain neutral about free speech issues, we become unwitting accomplices to those who wish to restrict individual human rights and freedom of expression, two key concepts without which democracy is rendered meaningless.

The recent threats by Islamic groups against Salman Rushdie and the weak kneed response of the political establishment and the police that resulted in his having to stay away from a literary festival in Jaipur, India (and later abandon plans for even a video appearance) is only the latest onslaught against freedom of expression in India. In the last twenty years we find that even in the traditional bastions of democracy and free speech like the US and Western Europe special interest groups have acquired the power to dictate what speech is acceptable and what is not.

Practitioners of mediation and dialogue have an interest in free speech and the individual’s right to critique society and groups.  Such an interest puts us squarely in the camp of those who are waging a failing war against the sensitivities of religious, ethnic, or racial groups who seek to practice their faiths and traditions without scrutiny or examination. Such groups are particularly allergic to critics and satirists – whom they term infidels, apostates, or blasphemers – who they feel they have the right to silence.

The price of silencing the voices that make us uncomfortable is that we kill the spirit of a people, one voice at a time, and finally lose whatever space we have left for honest expression.  Why should this worry mediators and peace builders? Well, for one, without honest expression, there is no dialogue. Without honest dialogue, conflict transformation is not possible.  Such consequences should be seriously disconcerting to those of us who love this work, and believe in its power to transform conflicts and societies.

“You say that freedom of utterance is not for time of stress, and I reply with the sad truth that only in time of stress is freedom of utterance in danger. No one questions it in calm days, because it is not needed. And the reverse is true also; only when free utterance is suppressed is it needed, and when it is needed, it is most vital to justice.”     ~William Allen White

Democracy, if it is not to degenerate into a farcical and periodical electoral circus, requires that citizens actively participate in intelligent deliberation, debate, and dialogue. As Professor Kenan Malik writes in his book, From Fatwa to Jihad, in secularizing blasphemy we have moved beyond merely treating religious beliefs or groups as sacred; we have reached a stage where any group or culture’s identity is sacred. Now in a hyper sensitive climate any critique or questioning, the very basis of intelligent deliberation, is perceived as disrespectful, offensive, and likely to be banned or silenced.

And yet a gag is not a prop suitable for dialogue.

Those of us who value dialogue must also value freedom of thought and expression. Such freedoms have never existed in any society by default. It is necessary that each generation fight to preserve them. Citizens in North America, Western Europe, and a smattering of other countries claim these freedoms today because previous generations fought for them, sometimes at great cost. Most parts of Asia, Africa, Latin America and, certainly, the Middle East do not have anything approximating these freedoms.

If we take our ideals, passions, and work as mediators and peace builders seriously, we should ensure that the conditions necessary for the fruitful practice of our field not be whittled away   by manipulative fundamentalists, apologists for repressive ideologies, or by well meaning but confused multi-culturists, or weak-kneed and cynical politicians.

Ashok Panikkar

Executive Director, Meta-Culture, Bangalore, India

Remembering Ray Shonholtz

This week we lost a great peacebuilding visionary and pioneer, Raymond Shonholtz.  I, along with many others, lost a friend, teacher, partner and mentor. As founder of Community Boards, Ray practically invented the modern community mediation center —  transforming the idea from a quasi-court apparatus to full-service hub for community dialogue, intergroup conciliation, and peer mediation — using mediators who reflect the diversity of the community.

As if this weren’t enough, Ray was the Typhoid Mary of mediation in the new democracies in the post-Soviet world, building the first locally staffed and managed mediation centers in Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans, Caucasus, former Soviet Union, and beyond. His organization, Partners for Democratic Change, is now truly global, promoting locally-driven conflict resolution capacity in more than 20 countries in 5 continents.

I had the honor of serving as Ray’s International Director for many years, and the saplings he planted worldwide are now like unto the mighty redwoods from Ray’s beloved Bay Area. (Coincidence that Shonholtz is German for “beautiful tree”?)

I wrote earlier about how Ray’s international vision is now influencing how we roll here in New York City — international development in reverse.  Ray’s last writings and public presentations included a call to action to the Occupy Movement to build upon their participatory creativity to bring about meaningful, sustained social change.

Here are a few random memories and Rayisms from over the years:

– Ray was a wordsmith with a penchant for zen koan-esque, oxymoronic turns of phrases.  He referred to Partners for Democratic Change as a “small giant” — i.e. an organization of immense reach, though (at the time) under the radar. OK, a small giant in reality is just a regular-sized guy, but the phrase works.

– Ray was a small giant: a highly influential figure in our field, but one who focused more on building others’ capacity and celebrating their triumphs than getting in his own name and mug in the media and literature.

– Ray’s wordsmithery was manifested in his famous BPBRs – bad poems by Ray — odes, limericks and haikus he wrote for friends and colleagues to honor accomplishments, birthdays, anniversaries, or for no reason at all. They were replete with slanted rhymes, groaner puns, and delightful non-sequiturs.  In a profession that can take itself a bit too seriously, Ray knew how to make the workplace fun.

– Classic Rayism: In fundraising and mediation, no is just the beginning of the relationship.

– Ray loved to negotiate.  In our very limited downtime on international junkets, he often dragged me into hotel after hotel, just to negotiate room rates (with no intention to ever stay in most of the rathole fleabags we dipped our beaks into). He showed me that pretty much everything is negotiable.

– If I were to cast Ray in a biopic of his life, I’d go with Richard Dreyfuss.  Helen Hunt would play his lovely wife, Anne.

– When I started working with Ray, the internets were in their toddlerhood, and Ray was not the most computer savvy person around. (My favorite series of unfortunate typos that passed spell-check muster:  Panthers for Democratic Change Proposal for Pubic Policy on Meditation.)  Ray was very open to feedback on such things, and was immensely forgiving of my and other colleagues’ screw ups.

– Ray conquered jet lag and exhaustion with a power nap technique he learned in Japan.  At meetings, he’d ask our hosts if there was a private room he could use for a few minutes, ostensibly for a quick phone call.  He’d then lie supine for about 5 minutes, and emerge refreshed and re-energized.  (It terrified more than a few colleagues the first time they walked in on Ray motionless on the floor).

– When I would obsess about trying to fix something or be persistent beyond the point of utility, Ray would tell me:  If you get mud on your trouser cuffs, the more you rub at it, the more it’ll stain your pants. It’s sometimes better to let the mud dry and let it easily flake off.

– Ray’s definition of a stakeholder: anyone who can block progress or communication. Dialogue groups tend to be self-selecting, consisting of fellow-travellers, with dissidents, problem children and challenging personalities screened out (or at least not recruited). To really bring about community consensus meant giving the potential spoilers a seat at the table…and giving them the skills they need to constructively engage with the other.

– Another Rayism:  Peeling away the layers of an onion just gets you more onion. When asking questions in mediation and you get the same info over and over and over, it’s probably time to move on.

–The Ray-ality check:  At the end of a successful negotiation or mediation, Ray would often unnerve me by saying: “You know, we’ve made great progress, but something tells me this is not going to work.”  I asked why on earth he’d want to plant seeds of doubt after an agreement’s been reached.  He told me that if folks responded by defending their agreement, we were good to go…but if they showed doubt, we weren’t done yet.  It was a great deal-sealing maneuver.

We lost Ray far too early, and his friends, family, and colleagues are all reeling. Let’s find solace in the incredible legacy this small giant left behind, in the thousands of people he touched, and in the brilliant institutions he built.

on new year’s day, chickens 1, pigs 0.

In my family, chicken is alimentarius non grata on new year’s day, and my aunt traditionally served up pig’s stomach to our brood. (My dad was a Pennsylvania Dutch farm boy, and they ingested all parts of the pig except the oink.)  Bowing to the protestations of my cousins and me, my aunt ended up making lasagna as well, so I tended to eat the Garfield special.

As a lazy/inconsistent vegetarian, I’ll avoid both the fowl and the swine today.  Mac and cheese in on today’s menu chez nous.

But there was a point to the new year’s day meat superstition: the first of the year is all about looking forward…so, we were to avoid eating animals that scratched backward, and feast upon those who scratched forward.  On that day, the henhouse’s loss was the pigsty’s gain.

Mediation is all about looking forward, and this is a key way in which it differs from therapy.

While mediators can, and do, facilitate conversations with clients about what happened in the past, the thrust of the process is where do we go from here.  And while therapists certainly help their patients move forward, the emphasis of their work often focuses on patients’ behavioral origins, childhoods, parental relationships, and the like.

So, whatever’s on your plate today, here’s looking forward to a productive, prosperous, and peaceful 2012.