Ham & Eggs: Involved or Committed

A Pig and a Chicken are walking down the road.

The Chicken says: "Hey Pig, I was thinking we should open a restaurant!"

Pig replies: "Hm, maybe, what would we call it?

"The Chicken responds: "How about 'ham-n-eggs'?"

The Pig thinks for a moment and says: "No thanks. I'd be committed, but you'd only be involved."

A variation on that shows the farm animals have a breakfast to show their appreciation to Farmer Brown.

The same menu is suggested and them pig, again, expresses reluctance:

"That is a contribution from you, but total commitment from me."

Let that simmer a bit and consider this quote, spoken by so many politicians that the attribut1on has been lost to history.

“If you’re not at the table, then you’re probably on the menu.”

That is a slightly different twist, but it goes to the issues of involvement, inclusion, commitment, but-in, and community engagement.

Sometimes, we ask the greatest commitment from those to whom we pay the least attention. We demand participation in the cost, but do not invite participation in the process. We want  acquiescence without listening to the voices of those most affected by the decisions of those who wield power.

A seat at the table is what is most needed and most lacking in our deliberations as a body politic.

We say, "I could give you a fish and feed you for a day or teach you to fish and feed you for a lifetime."

Then, we lock up the access to rivers, lakes, and streams.

Empowerment for one means that we release some of our own cherished power. Inclusion is meaningless if it is not full inclusion.

No one is reluctant to be committed as long as they have been involved from the beginning and have helped to determine the courses of action.

Conversations about what we can do for our communities often devolve into  what we are going to do to them, with them, and about them.

We can do better.