I heard a politician make a non-credible case for the experience level of her candidate. I thought - why not just say:

• I’d prefer Candidate X had more experience, but the policies and accomplishments override my concerns about that.

Unite and Concur outlines logical fallacies - and black and white, either/or, absolute thinking and arguments that gloss over nuances and distinctions. This kind of argument is unreal.

So get real. You can wish your candidate had more experience AND still support them. Lose the absolute thinking and put forth honest arguments.

So I checked Snopes and discovered that most of the claims were, in fact, verified by Snopes. And some were discredited. The alarming predictions of impending terrorist attacks in American cities were four years old and expired.

Why forward an email that you know contains alarming errors? Why not correct it before you send it?

That’s what I call sloppy, irresponsible communication. The responsible communicators will challenge these emails rather than pass them on.

After the events in Tibet in March, the overwhelming majority of students told me and wrote in the journals that CNN is so biased against China. When I asked them if they had read the original articles or seen the CNN newscasts on TV, not a single one had.

They had gone to a website, anti-cnn.com, whose author remains anonymous and whose purpose is unknown.

However, the government had picked up on the story. It makes a convenient way to shut down alternative viewpoints in the run-up to the Olympics or at least get the people to discount them.

I may not get anyone to change their viewpoints by suggesting they read the sources, but I do what I can.

Please keep this anonymous – it’s not safe for me to post my name.

I’m interested to hear strategies folks have employed to re-route political discussions they don’t want to have.

Some at work are vocal in sharing their strongly-held views on politics and/or religion. Regardless of my personal view on the topic, I prefer not to talk politics or religion unless it relates to the work at hand. It seems a high-risk conversation with limited potential benefit.

My father’s family regularly enjoys Socratic and roundtable debates hashing out such topics, whereas my mother is genuinely pained by such conversations and tends to escape. Her beliefs stem straight from her core and she gets genuinely upset when challenged or asked to explain them. She believes what she believes and doesn’t want to defend or explain them, nor does she seek to convert others. When others don’t share her position, she struggles to understand and avoid judging them; thus, she’d rather not go there, particularly with loved ones. Debating with dad’s side can be fun, but I respect mom’s needs enough to avoid the subject when she is in the group.

Without knowing who at work needs what on such touchy subjects, I’d rather not go there either. How can one communicate that effectively?

Meryl Responds,

I advocate having these conversations, not avoiding them. Otherwise, brash, bold and aggressive communicators dominate and the more sensitive perspectives never get heard. I imagine your mother’s aversion to these conversations is due to the fact is that most political discussions are argumentative and ungracious. She hold personal beliefs, and most political conversations treat the topic in callus, impersonal ways.

Interesting, isn’t it? - I suspect your mother’s voice is the one that most needs to be heard, and she’s the one who is reluctant to speak.

Sometimes we need to move into areas of discomfort. She (and you) could say something like:

• I have observations on this topic, but I hesitate to share them because the tone of the conversation is contentious, not cooperative. I work hard to understand what you’re saying, and if I feel like you’re willing to do the same for me, I’d be happy to share how I see the situation.

If her beliefs are deeply held, it could benefit everyone to hear them. It might shift the dialogue to a deeper level, too.

At work you could say,

I have strong feelings on this issue which I prefer not to share in a casual conversation.

That way, you can defer the conversation for a situation that respects your preference and needs.

- Global warming calamity. Huge profit opportunities.

Isn’t it telling how readily we accept the morality of profiting from disaster? I remember Aaron Brown commenting on CNN early into the Iraq war,

- To the victor go the spoils.

He was explaining why France had no right to hope for Iraqi contracts. My thought was - where did we get the idea that it’s acceptable to profit from war, disaster and misery?

Now, the investment opportunity in the flyer I mentioned is in planet friendly technology. I’m all for that. In fact, my socially responsible investments are doing just fine, and that makes me happy. I have no problem with this particular investment. I just wish the marketers had appealed to…and thereby promoted the value of…social responsibility rather than greed. Naomi Kline calls it “Disaster Capitalism.” I’ve seen similar disaster headlines used to promote destructive investments. Clearly these headlines work. The headline creates a jolt and leads to a conclusion that makes people’s eyes light up like dollar signs.

Let’s challenge the assumptions of this kind of marketing.

Many people refrain from creating a vision of what they want because the reality is so different that the discrepancy is too painful. But if we can’t even picture what perfection would be, we’re doomed. We can never make it happen.

So fill in the blanks with your own vision – imagine a world where…

Dare to desire a better world.

I invite you to fill in the vision of my flash movie with the world you envision.

Your words reveal the way you think. I catch myself using the word “I” at times when I should be using the word “we.” I see it as a signal that it’s time to be more inclusive in my thinking.

I read an article years ago that said leaders who seek power to dominate rather than support to lead will substitute the word “I” for the word “we.” Statements like: “I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent” instead of we won’t do these things shifts power from the people to the leader.

“I” is exclusive. “We” is inclusive. An exclusive politician who knows this might use the word “we” in a tactical way. Only time can tell us that. But a leader who focuses on him or herself rather than appeal to a collective effort sends out red flags to those of us who would rather Unite and Concur.

• Work cooperatively, not confrontationally.
• Look at your colleagues as colleagues, not political adversaries.
• Agree on facts before you apply your ideology to policy.
• Take ample time to understand different views and deliberate on where you’re going.
• Search for areas of agreement, and do not exaggerate areas of disagreement.
• Get people focused on the national interest, not on partisan advantage.
• Decide from the get-go that you’re going to reach an agreement, not use disagreement to score political points.

Keep these points in mind when you evaluate leaders and news sources, and when you plan your own approach to potentially contentious discussions.

In April my husband and I attended the Rocky Mountain Plover Festival in Karval Colorado. Getting to see Burrowing Owls, Horned Larks, and Snowy Plovers was incredible, but the real highlight of the weekend was witnessing a unique human interaction.

The Plover Festival is a result of a partnership between the ranchers of Karval, the Colorado Division of Wildlife, and the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory. That may not seem unusual until you realize that in most parts of Colorado (and the country) environmentalists and government employees are not welcome on a rancher’s land. In fact, one rancher from Karval said that 6 years ago he would have been quick to “show off” his gun and “run government intruders” off his land. Just a few years later this same rancher happily drove a truck hauling a trailer seating dozens of birders and wildlife officials all over his ranch. To top it all off, the ranchers (Karl, Jeff, and Russ) joked and laughed with Ken (CDW) and Seth (RMNBO) as if they were brothers!

Instead of focusing on the birds, I spent a lot of time asking our hosts about how this partnership had evolved and observing their interactions. Here are some highlights from what I learned:

COLLABORATION. The ranchers and birders kept talking about how much they had learned, and were continuing to learn from one another. This was not a one-sided situation where the government set out to change the ranchers. It was about figuring out how to work together to save ranches and birds.

RESPECT. The ranchers had made the biggest change in their thinking, yet Ken never let them put themselves down or say they had been wrong before. He constantly talked about how important the ranchers are and how much they were advancing the protection of the birds.

PATIENCE. The government team first approached the ranchers about conducing studies on their land more than 6 years ago. The first Plover Festival was held last year. It took five years, a lot of data collection, a lot education, and a lot of conversations to get here.

All in all, it was a beautiful weekend – in more ways than one.