How long has it been since you've heard engaging conversation between two experts of differing opinions that didn't sound like dogs fighting? The commercialized media plays up the polarization at every turn; banking on a controversy-equals-ratings equation that slights issues in favor of political theatrics. Is there a better strategy to get public attention and ratings than propagating division? Can the media be the link that informs and inspires us to act, as it did after the Tsunami? The recent cancellation of the CNN's, "Crossfire" shows a move away from aggressive debate, but toward what? Can we move beyond either/or problem solving to create solutions that come from a Both/And perspective?

• "Viewers need 'useful' information in a dangerous world, and a bunch of guys screaming at each other simply doesn't accomplish that." CNN/US president Jonathan Klein.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."- Abraham Lincoln

Across the aisles of congress, legislators who in November promised to work toward bi-partisanship are digging trenches and threatening each another with flagrant filibustering and the sinister "nuclear option." Some analysts say the challenges we face - terrorism; gaps in wealth and dependency in a global economy; wars in lands we don't understand; and changes in our climate - will not defeat us as surely as our internal divisions.

• When it comes to healthcare, social security and occupation in Iraq, does division on party lines solve problems or prolong them?
  
  
• A recent PIPA poll showed a majority of Americans - Democrat and Republican - have more in common than not when it comes everything from nuclear weapons to climate change. Are we really so different after all?

The Both/And Initiative brings together the extraordinary ordinary American people stepping into the breech - experimenting with methods and media to create real and exciting dialogue out of our differences so we can work on real change. In "conversation cafés", radio interviews, churches/temples, universities, living rooms, councils, and legislative study groups Americans are crossing the party lines in search of solutions. In the process, they are discovering that answers evolve when differing convictions are applied to common concerns.

What makes these conversations work? Why are people risking a fight to learn about what others think? What are they learning? What tools are they offering and how can other people connect? Will they impact the way our government works? Are they finding "common ground" without sacrificing their own beliefs? Are these discussions as interesting as partisan shouting matches? Might the mainstream media become a new vehicle for these public conversations?

Talking Points