Run In With Mr. Edwards

Six paragraphs of blather, but no answer to the actual question asked.
And why exactly does "compromise" represent some sort of holy grail
you seem to imply?

Because if the people of the United States don't re-learn what "compromise"
means, we're headed down a one-way path to Balkanization.

In some ways, and in some locales, it's already happened.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote

Six paragraphs of blather, but no answer to the actual question asked.
And why exactly does "compromise" represent some sort of holy grail
you seem to imply?

Because if the people of the United States don't re-learn what "compromise"
means, we're headed down a one-way path to Balkanization.

In some ways, and in some locales, it's already happened.

In this and other posts, you seem to equate compromise with listening
to opposing positions and giving them due consideration. I disagree.
These are manifestly different behaviors. I'll listen to someone who
says for example "Taxes should be raised for ...". But if I think it's
a waste I sure as hell won't respond "OK let's compromise and only
raise taxes half as much as you want".

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q

In this and other posts, you seem to equate compromise with listening
to opposing positions and giving them due consideration. I disagree.
These are manifestly different behaviors. I'll listen to someone who
says for example "Taxes should be raised for ...". But if I think it's
a waste I sure as hell won't respond "OK let's compromise and only
raise taxes half as much as you want".

Well, that's EXACTLY what compromise is -- and it's been going on in America
for generations.

If fact, it is this almost unique feature of American political life that
has enabled our democracy to survive while so many others have perished.
Our ability to come to terms with our opponents -- as opposed to crushing
them -- is what makes our democracy work.

At the moment, however, I see very little of this sentiment at the national
level. It's "my way, or the highway" on a myriad of issues -- and the
rhetoric is reaching a dangerous volume.

Trouble is, the real "meaty" issues that divide Republicans from Democrats
(i.e.: Abortion; marriage; stem cell research; the purpose of government;
taxes; the right to bear arms; religion; etc.) are "black and white" issues,
with little room for compromise.

I don't think that any of this is new. However, our parents and
grand-parents were able to keep a lid on these kinds of disagreements by
maintaining a higher level of courtesy and decorum that has been all but
lost in America. Today, no one bats an eye at calling someone else "stupid"
or "immoral" because of what they believe -- and this is a radical change
that is harming our political system.

This naturally creates hard feelings, making any compromise MUCH more
difficult to achieve. The end result is political grid-lock, followed by
increasing frustration amongst the electorate, followed by revolution or
civil war, if carried to its ultimate conclusion.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article 78vYc.224$_g7.16@attbi_s52, "Jay Honeck"
writes:


I don't think that any of this is new. However, our parents and
grand-parents were able to keep a lid on these kinds of disagreements by
maintaining a higher level of courtesy and decorum that has been all but
lost in America. Today, no one bats an eye at calling someone else "stupid"
or "immoral" because of what they believe -- and this is a radical change
that is harming our political system.


Jay,

I have an alternate theory for the polarization in US political life, and that
is that we have created an illusion that makes our political efforts from both
sides produce counter intuitive results. That leads to frustration and anger as
people cling to that illusion and see their goals fall further away. Sort of
like pulling back on the stick makes the houses get smaller, but only to a
point after which pulling back on the stick makes the houses get bigger really
fast.

The illusion we have created is the progressive income tax. We ignore the whole
concept of imbedded taxes (payroll taxes, corporate and personal income taxes,
and others) which become invisbly imbedded in the price of goods and services,
and those imbedded taxes fall very regressively on the poor.

The result is that the more progressive we make the income tax, the more the
poor fall behind and the greater the separation becomes. It is a hard concept
to wrap your mind around, but it is provably true. We see it happening all
around us every day. The more the Democrats succeed in shifting the income tax
burden to the rich, the greater the gap between rich and poor becomes, and the
history of the last 50 years proves it. I will email a copy of an editorial I
wrote for a local liberal paper explaining the paradox. It is too long to post
here, but I will email a copy to anyone who wants it.

But you can see that when every success becomes a failure, and every defeat
makes things better, the left is going batty as their class warfare fails.

And yes, I do have a solution to the problem.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Don,

Please email me a copy of the editorial you mentioned in your RAP response
to
Jay Honeck.

Thanks!

Jon

"Wdtabor" wrote in message

I will email a copy of an editorial I
wrote

I'd like a copy too, please, Doc. Thanks.

John Gaquin

I will email a copy of an editorial I
wrote for a local liberal paper explaining the paradox. It is too long to
post
here, but I will email a copy to anyone who wants it.

It's an interesting theory, and there is a lot of truth in it.

However, the part about the "rich getting richer, and the poor getting
poorer, despite the progressive income tax" is wrong.

As a friend of mine at the University of Iowa demonstrated to me today, the
basic premise that the "gap between rich and poor is growing" is easily
disproved with actual government tax data. In fact, the gap has narrowed
substantially.

Which, of course, means that Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John
Edwards, Tom Vilsack, and all the rest of the Democrats are either sorely
misinformed, or simply lying to get elected.

Shocking, I know....

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

[...] As a friend of mine at the University of Iowa demonstrated to
me today, the basic premise that the "gap between rich and poor is
growing" is easily disproved with actual government tax data. In
fact, the gap has narrowed substantially. [...]

Plus the "gap" is not in itself an interesting quantity, if the "poor"
and "rich" standards of living are both increasing, as appears to be
the case.

- FChE

The lack of civility you describe certainly exists all over Usenet, but I
don't think it's such a big deal in the real world. Nor have things changed
that much over generations. And I don't think lack of compromise explains
any of what sucks in the U.S Congress. Here are some anecdotal examples to
support these points. Take them for what you will.

o Remember the heat Dan Burton (senator or congressman from Indiana) took for
calling President Clinton a "scumbag"?

o The History Channel ran a program last night about what led to the duel in
which Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton. Lots of hateful, vindictive, and
back-stabbing rhetoric was behind it, and not just between those two.

o Compromise happens in Congress every day. It often takes the form of
"Vote for my pork-barrel project to give other people's money to my
constituents, and I'll vote for yours".

Compromise as an end in itself, especially when it comes to moral values, is
not a good thing.

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q

"Jay Honeck" wrote

Well, that's EXACTLY what compromise is -- and it's been going on in America
for generations.

If fact, it is this almost unique feature of American political life that
has enabled our democracy to survive while so many others have perished.
Our ability to come to terms with our opponents -- as opposed to crushing
them -- is what makes our democracy work.

At the moment, however, I see very little of this sentiment at the national
level. It's "my way, or the highway" on a myriad of issues -- and the
rhetoric is reaching a dangerous volume.

Trouble is, the real "meaty" issues that divide Republicans from Democrats
(i.e.: Abortion; marriage; stem cell research; the purpose of government;
taxes; the right to bear arms; religion; etc.) are "black and white" issues,
with little room for compromise.

I don't think that any of this is new. However, our parents and
grand-parents were able to keep a lid on these kinds of disagreements by
maintaining a higher level of courtesy and decorum that has been all but
lost in America. Today, no one bats an eye at calling someone else "stupid"
or "immoral" because of what they believe -- and this is a radical change
that is harming our political system.

This naturally creates hard feelings, making any compromise MUCH more
difficult to achieve. The end result is political grid-lock, followed by
increasing frustration amongst the electorate, followed by revolution or
civil war, if carried to its ultimate conclusion.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:0mbYc.62972$9d6.35025@attbi_s54...
Six paragraphs of blather, but no answer to the actual question asked.
And why exactly does "compromise" represent some sort of holy grail
you seem to imply?

Because if the people of the United States don't re-learn what
"compromise"
means, we're headed down a one-way path to Balkanization.

What does it mean to you?
Seems Americans have been compromising for generations (and geting noting in
return).


In some ways, and in some locales, it's already happened.