Here is my new revelation: we’re doing this wrong. What we are doing is expecting a rational compromise to come out of political warfare. We are expecting the compromise to occur on the global level — lots of righties, lots of lefties and hopefully something gets done somewhere in the middle.

That’s wrong. What we need to do is be prepared to compromise ourselves, internally, in terms of how we elect our leaders. This is exemplified easiest as “single issue politics”. There is not a more irrational strategy than single issue politics. We must accommodate multi-issue politics in our decisions and we have to be immune to the constant pressure by single-issue institutions to do otherwise.

There are conservative values I agree with. Many conservatives share some of my liberals values. This is not binary. We need to elect sensible, thinking people who really want to solve problems. That is more important than electing people who punch the same answer as you on the scorecard.

For example: Hey, Righties, could you live with someone who raised taxes on you if they delivered a robust economy? Hey, Lefties, could you live with fewer social programs if they delivered you situation where fewer people needed it? Can we worry a little more about the strategies and less about the tactics?

Some of the goals are a good standard of living, a robust economy, peaceful relationships with the world, minimal government interference in our lives and a just and equitable society. Can we agree on that? If so, can we be ready to compromise on the tactics and methods to achieve these things?

The compromise doesn’t happen “out there”. It happens in you and in me and it happens when we look at the big picture. We need better leaders. We have the power to select better leaders. We have to stop electing ideologues and start electing problem solvers. You’re the only one who can do that.

This is entertaining:

It’s a key point and it is good that Matthews pushed it: appeasement does not mean “talking to”. It means giving up something in hopes of avoiding a conflict. Neville Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler by signing the Munich Agreement, conceding part of Czechoslovakia to Hitler.

John F. Kennedy said “Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.” I agree with him. I think Bush is a dumbshit.

Stung by criticism that his Monday letter explaining a veto of legislation to ban a fire retardant and a known toxin in children’s toys was “riddled with inaccuracies,” Gov. Tim Pawlenty yesterday acknowledged factual misstatements and apologized.

But he still stands behind his veto:

And so, the governor altered his reasons for vetoing the bill which, he said Tuesday, was because “many studies regarding the impact of DECA do not support a ban.”

Meanwhile, in reality:

Dahl said the “overwhelming conclusion” of independent, peer-reviewed studies is that DECA is a “dangerous neurotoxin.” She produced a long list of abstracts for scientific papers documenting known hazards of DECA, and another list of studies on another toxin, phthalate (pronounced fail-ate), that would be phased out in the vetoed bill.

Dahl said that both DECA and phthalate do not bond to the products in which they’re used, meaning that the chemicals are released as children chew on playthings or as products heat up.

Forty-one nations, including the European Union and Mexico, have banned phthalate; the giant retailer Toys R Us and toymaker Mattel have vowed to be phthalate-free by the end of the year.

The flame-retardant DECA — a “developmental neurotoxin” similar to PCBs, which were banned in Minnesota in the 1970s — is used in textiles, mattresses, and electronics. Heat causes DECA to be released, exposing firefighters to elevated chemical risk as they respond to fires.

Children are affected as heat from laptops and TV sets release DECA into dust that then circulates around the home and into carpeting.

Hmmm, I wonder whose pocket the Gov. is in on this one?

(via MinnPost)