The PARADOX of Compromise

http://outofcharacterbook.com/files/aec294f157f747f4fff200df27f2-61.html

There is a post at the above link which discusses “Politics and the Paradox of Compromise”.   It was written by David Brooks, on his blog.  I was interested in reading the post because for many years I have noticed what I consider to be a paradox in the concept of compromise.

My suggestion is that you read the post above now, BEFORE you continue to read my post, and that way, my post can have no influence on your impressions of Mr. Brook's above post.  My 30 years in the medical profession imprinted me with the precepts of the scientific method, along with the usual “blind & double blind” constraints.

Hopefully you have read their post, so I will continue with my comments.

The author above defines the paradox as “Herein lies the paradox. Compromise has unambiguous merits across multiple domains, but it is an action to which much of the general population is often decidedly averse.”  His whole post seems flawed, although years ago, I noticed that there DOES EXIST a paradox in the nature of Compromise.

His definition is almost the exact opposite of the paradox of compromise that I noticed years ago, so this second paragraph of his post started an uncomfortable sensation for me.  And as I read further, it became pretty clear that this was the same paradox that I had noticed, but being spun by the liberal/progressive mindset.

My definition of the paradox that I saw can be presented in a “parallel construction” to Mr. Brook’s blog post's definition.  What I saw was “Herein lies the paradox.  Compromise has COMPLETELY ambiguous merits across multiple domains, and it is an action which can be an almost spiritual exercise in some domains, to which NO ONE is adverse, and utter depravity in others, to which EVERYONE is "decidedly adverse”.

This is the ambiguity and paradox that I saw years ago.

After I had recognized and defined the paradox that I saw – the “what”.

Then for me, the fun part started – figuring out what caused the paradox, and could it be cancelled out of the process of compromise – the “why” and "how"?  One common trick in the use of the scientific method is to reduce the number of variables as much as possible to make it easier to parse the fewer number of variables remaining.  So I turned MYSELF into the constant, and then needed to only look to the various domains for the answer of “how and why is there this paradox”.

Mr . Brooks asked the question “…why is it that we so readily preach compromise to our children, our spouses and our business partners but are so averse to it in practice?” – while he mentions the previous three domains, he later brings the domain of politics into the comparison.

The solution I came to years ago as to the “why” is related to the domain.  Any time I perceive the person I am trying to compromise with, as honest, guileless, and without ANY ulterior motive, then compromise  becomes the “almost spiritual exercise”, for example compromise with children, spouses, clergy, business partners, etc. 

But if I perceive the person as dishonest, corrupt, or hiding some ulterior motive, then the exercise becomes “utter depravity”, and the stronger my perception is, the more depraved the exercise seems.  For example compromise with a cheating spouse, enemy combatant, military interrogation, a criminal, a heroin addict, a sociopath, or a habitual liar, etc.

For me THAT is the paradox that I see, and also the solution to it.  So the next time you are compromising with a spouse on what your 13 year old daughter’s curfew is, when the 13 year-old is out at night – If you suggest 1am and then your spouse suggests 7am, so as to be able to create an ACTUAL 4am curfew, with this style of dishonest compromise, you don’t have the “almost spiritual” feeling which is possible under FAIR conditions. 

And as another example, if you are trying to reach a political compromise and you suggest your acceptance for a $2.4 TRILLION debt ceiling increase, as proposed by your compromise partner, and he refuses unless you allow him to raise it anytime, at his sole discretion each year, you may feel trapped in the feeling of “utter depravity”, the same as you might feel when trying to compromise with a sociopath, or habitual liar?

God Bless America

Why Huntley Brown Can't Vote For Obama

Why I Can't Vote For Obama

A post by pianist Huntley Brown – Written PRIOR TO the Nov 2008 election of Obama as President.  The liberal fact finding site Snopes rates this post as TRUE.

"Dear Friends,
A few months ago I was asked for my perspective on Obama, I sent out an e-mail with a few points.  With the election just around the corner I decided to complete my perspective.  Those of you on my e-list have seen some of this before but its worth repeating.

First I must say whoever wins the election will have my prayer support. Obama needs to be commended for his accomplishments but I need to explain why I will not be voting for him.  Many of my friends process their identity through their blackness.  I process my identity through Christ. Being a Christian (a Christ follower) means he leads I follow. I can't dictate the terms he does because he is the leader.

I can't vote black because I am black.  I have to vote Christian because that's who I am.  Christian first, black second.  Neither should anyone from the other ethnic groups vote because of ethnicity.   200 years from now I won’t be asked if I was black or white. I will be asked if I know Jesus and accepted him as Lord and savior.

In an election there are many issues to consider but when a society gets abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning to name a few wrong economic concerns will soon not matter.  We need to follow Martin Luther King's words - don't judge someone by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.  I don't know Obama so all I can go off is his voting record.

His voting record earned him the title of the most liberal senator in the US Senate in 2007.

NATIONAL JOURNAL: Obama: Most Liberal Senator in 2007 (01/31/2008)

To beat Ted Kennedy and Hilary Clinton as the most liberal senator, takes some doing. 

Obama accomplished this feat in 2 short years. I wonder what would happen to America if he had four years to work with.

There is a reason Planned Parenthood gives him a 100 % ratings.
There is a reason the homosexual community supports him.
There is a reason Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, Hamas etc loves him.
There is a reason he said he would nominate liberal judges to the Supreme Court.
There is a reason he voted against the infanticide bill.
There is a reason he voted No on the constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.
There is a reason he voted no on partial birth abortion.
There is a reason he voted no on confirming Justices Roberts and Alito.  These two judges are conservatives and they have since overturned partial birth abortion.  The same practice Obama wanted to continue.

Lets take a look at the practice he wanted to continue.

The 5 Step Partial Birth Abortion procedure.

A. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps.
(Remember this is a live baby)
B. The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
C. The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.
D. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole.
E. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.

God help him.

There is a reason Obama opposed the parent notification law.

Think about this you can't give a kid an aspirin without parental notification but that same kid can have an abortion without parental notification. This is insane.

There is a reason he went to Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years.

Obama tells us he has good judgement but he sat under Jeremiah Wright teaching for 20 years.  Now he is condemning Wrights sermons. I wonder why now?

Obama said Jeremiah Wright led him to the Lord and discipled him.   A disciple is one in training.   Jesus told us in Matthew 28 v 19 – 20, go and make disciples of all nations.  This means reproduce yourself.  Teach people to think like you, walk like you, talk like you believe what you believe etc.  The question I have is what did Jeremiah Wright teach him?

Would you support a White President who went to a church which has tenants that said they have a:

1.     Commitment to the White Community
2. Commitment to the White Family
3. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
4. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community.
5. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
6. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
7. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.”
Would you support a President who went to a church like that?

Just change the word from white to black and you have the tenants of Obama’s former church.  If President Bush was a member of a church like this, he would be called a racist.  Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton would have been marching outside.

This kind of church is a racist church. Obama did not wake up after 20 years and just discovered he went to a racist church.  The church can't be about race. Jesus did not come for any particular race.  He came for the whole world.

A church can't have a value system based on race.  The churches value system has to be based on biblical mandate.  It does not matter if its a white church or a black church it’s still wrong.  Anyone from either race that attends a church like this would never get my vote.

Obama's former Pastor Jeremiah Wright is a disciple of liberal theologian James Cone, author of the 1970 book A Black Theology of Liberation.  Cone once wrote: “Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community.  If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him.

Cone is the man Obama's mentor looks up to. Does Obama believe this?  So what does all this mean for the nation?

In the past when the Lord brought someone with the beliefs of Obama to lead a nation it meant one thing judgement.

Read 1 Samuel 8. When Israel asked for a king.  First God says 1 Samuel 8 v 9 “Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do."

Then God says
1 Samuel 8 v 18 “When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king
you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day."  19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel.  "No!" they said.  "We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles."  21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. 22 The LORD answered, "Listen to them and give them a king."
 

Here is what we know for sure God is not schizophrenic

He would not tell one person to vote for Obama and one to vote for McCain. As the scripture says a city divided against itself cannot stand, so obviously many people are not hearing from God.

Maybe I am the one not hearing but I know God does not change and Obama contradicts many things I read in scripture so I doubt it.

For all my friends who are voting for Obama can you really look God in the face and say Father based on your word, I am voting for Obama even though I know he will continue the genocidal practice of partial birth abortion.  He might have to nominate three or four supreme court justices, and I am sure he will be nominating liberal judges who will be making laws that are against you.

I also know he will continue to push for homosexual rights, even though you destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this.  I know I can look the other way because of the economy.  I could not see Jesus agreeing with many of Obama's positions.

Finally I have two questions for all my liberal friends.  Since we know someone's value system has to be placed on the nation:

1 Whose value system should be placed on the nation.

2 Who should determine that this is the right value system for the nation?


Huntley Brown"

Another Top Ten List

Larry Elder's Top Ten List for "Why Even Liberals Should Support the GOP"




Larry Elder is a best-selling author and radio talk-show host. To find out more about Larry Elder, or become an "Elderado," visit www.LarryElder.com.


"1)  Incredibly weak recovery: President Barack Obama's tax/spend/regulation policy -- "stimulus"; continuation of TARP; bank, insurance company and auto industry bailouts; "quantitative easing" (aka the printing of money); cash for clunkers; minimum wage hikes; new regulatory rules on businesses; tripling of the deficit; addition of $4 trillion to the debt -- failed miserably to produce jobs and grow the economy at the historical rate expected after a deep recession.

2)  ObamaCare: President Barack Obama promised it would "bend the cost curve" and that "if you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan." The chief Medicare actuary said neither of those claims is true. Two-thirds of doctors believe that ObamaCare will lower the quality of health care.


3)  Bogus Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission: Comprised of six Democrats and four Republicans, the commission issued a majority report (with the Republicans dissenting) that blamed Wall Street greed. "Reckless Endangerment," a new book on the financial crisis co-authored by a New York Times columnist/business and financial editor, blames the central role played by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as government policy that pressured banks into relaxing lending standards so that the "underrepresented" could buy homes they could not afford.


One of the FCIC's commissioners and its chief investigator both work for a major law firm that is suing a number of Wall Street players. The two stand to benefit financially from the commission's Wall-Street-is-the-bad-guy conclusion. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who recommended a commissioner in question, now claims he was unaware of his tie to the law firm. The commission chairman, Democrat Phil Angelides -- who received $225,000 in campaign donations from the same law firm -- works for an offshore hedge fund that shorted mortgage-backed securities just before the crisis.

4)  Texas justice vs. "Viva Mexico": The Obama administration unsuccessfully filed a court action to stop Texas' planned execution of a Mexican illegal alien found guilty of brutally raping, torturing and murdering a 16-year-old girl. The U.S. Justice Department argued that as an illegal alien the accused should have been advised that he had a right to go to the Mexican consultant to obtain an attorney. Since the accused didn't reveal he was an illegal alien when arrested, the Obama administration sued Texas for not asking the accused about his status. Texas executed the rapist/murderer, who right before the lethal injection, reportedly shouted, "Viva Mexico." Meanwhile, the administration obtained an injunction against Arizona to prevent law enforcement, during a lawful stop, from inquiring about legal status.


5) Libya: Against the advice of the top lawyer in the Pentagon and the State Department, Obama ignored the War Powers Resolution and authorized a military mission in Libya without congressional approval.


6)  Left-wing judicial appointments: An Obama re-election could mean one or more additional liberal Supreme Court justices, ensuring that the "living, breathing document" view of the Constitution will apply to critical issues like gay marriage, the Second Amendment and the legality of ObamaCare.


7)  Boeing vs. the National Labor Relations Board: In a recent press conference, Obama falsely called this a matter of Boeing "relocating" and "shutting down a plant or laying off workers because labor and management can't come to a sensible agreement." No, Boeing constructed a new facility in South Carolina with no related job losses at Boeing's home state of Washington. In fact, Boeing has been adding jobs in Washington. Here's the question: Can Boeing, subject to four costly strikes since 1989 in the non-right-to-work state of Washington, build a facility where it wishes?

The Obama-Loving Media Protective League: Consider two issues that would have generated huge and continuing headlines if it were that a Republican was in the White House. Obama promised to diminish the influence of lobbyists, so members of his administration hold meetings off White House premises where they do not show up on White House logs. After promising "the most transparent administration in history," the secrets-obsessed Obama administration has issued more subpoenas of reporters' phone records and other information than did the Bush administration in eight years.


9)  Democrats' race cards: DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz calls the GOP anti-woman and anti-gay, and says it wants to "drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws." Democrats -- from former presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter to Sen. Reid -- routinely attack Republicans by whipping out the race card.


10)  Anti-voucher for urban schools: The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program gave vouchers so that parents could choose the school for their children. The Department of Education hired an outside evaluator, who called it a success -- it improved reading scores and, most importantly, increased graduation rates from 70 percent to 82 percent. Despite the popularity of vouchers among Hispanic and black urban parents, Obama and the Democrats oppose them, and the D.C. program was canned."


Any questions?  If so, take a look at this video - it should clear up any questions!